Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL

Ordered,
That the Committee on the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative. — [The Chairman al Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Small Firms

Mr. Bright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about his Department's latest plans for reducing the burdens on small firms.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): My Department's plans, together with those of other Departments, for reducing burdens on both small and large firms are outlined in the recently published White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers". I have to date received no representations arising from the White Paper.

Mr. Bright: Is my hon. Friend happy that there is adequate liaison between his and other Departments of State, in particular the Department of Employment, which inherited the small firms unit? Is there still the will and momentum to rid small businesses in particular of petty burdens, which is probably the most significant factor nowadays deterring people from going into business?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that there certainly is the will and commitment to continue with a deregulation policy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I were, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, originally in the Department of Employment, so on that level there is good liaison. In addition, three Cabinet Ministers—my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General — are involved in the deregulation process.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware that one of the biggest problems faced by small firms in Britain is that of cash flow? It would be of great practical assistance to them

if he could lift the four-month moratorium on the payment of regional development grants and other forms of financial assistance to small firms.

Mr. Morrison: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the moratorium, but he will appreciate that the regional development grant scheme is demand led. However, I shall look at the point that he has made.

Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the greatest disincentive to the creation of small businesses, as shown in recent studies, is not a lack of capital, or indeed a lack of markets, but the administrative burdens placed on smaller businesses? Does he further accept that the Government have done a great deal in that respect already, but much still needs to be done? Will he look earnestly at and accept the recommendations of the Conservative Back-Bench small business committee?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that administrative burdens are one of the disincentives to setting up new businesses, but the other significant point is the attitude towards small businesses. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has changed that attitude and there is definitely a feeling that small businesses should he encouraged and persuaded to set up and to prevail and prosper. I hope that it goes without saying that we listen carefully to any proposals put by my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the small business committee.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that the new Data Protection Act 1984 has placed considerable burdens on small firms, especially those seeking to use the new technologies to make themselves more efficient? Has his Department made any recommendations to the Home Office on how those burdens might be reduced or simplified in favour of small firms?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but, as he will appreciate, we must conform with what our European colleagues have agreed. However, the matter is kept under review.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: As my hon. Friend will not reach Question 26 on the Order Paper this afternoon on precisely this subject, may I ask him whether he plans to make any changes in the accountancy rules for small businesses'?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is a pessimist in these matters. I hope we can progress speedily and that we shall reach Question 26. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has direct responsibility for these matters and I expect that he will make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Eastham: When, in due course, the Minister considers these matters, will he also consider the matter of selective assistance in cases where grants are not mandatory? Some firms fill in forms for civil servants, wait about six or seven months and then find that they do not qualify for grants. Is it not about time that we did something about this?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly fair point. He probably realises, just as the House realises, that a review of regional grants and regional selective assistance is currently taking place. We are certainly looking at the precise point that he has mentioned. By and large, I receive many more plaudits than criticisms. Of course, there may be the odd reason for criticism. As I say, we receive mainly plaudits because the officials in my


Department and in the regional offices are generally speaking, considered by all and sundry who apply for grants to be efficient and helpful in the processing of the necessary forms.

Mr. Thurnham: May I ask question No. 24? I hope that we shall reach question No. 24. May I ask my hon. Friend to have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about the provisions of the Latent Damages Bill which require firms to keep records for 15 years? Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is an excessive period for small engineering and other firms?

Mr. Morrison: I am hopeful that we shall reach question No. 24. My hon. Friend asked about the Latent Damages Bill. I do not pretend to be expert on that, but of course I shall raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and no doubt he and my hon. Friend could discuss the matter further.

Mr. John Smith: In expressing our understanding of the very sad reason why the Secretary of State is not able to be with us today, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to express to the Secretary of State and his family our very deep sympathy and condolences?

Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I shall certainly pass on his message.

Postal Services

Mr. Peter Brunivels: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to end the Post Office's monopoly for the handling and delivering of mail.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): No, Sir, but I remind my hon. Friend that there is already free competition for the collection and delivery of all mail, except inland letters charged at less than £1.

Mr. Bruinvels: Although the Post Office has become more efficient and more profitable, surely my hon. Friend will accept that its suggestion to increase the postage rates by another penny when it cannot deliver more than 87·6 per cent. of post the next day is not exactly good news? Should not alternative services be offered? Is that not what the Conservative Government believe in?

Mr. Pattie: The first point I make to my hon. Friend is that the chairman of the Post Office has given preliminary notice to the chairman of the Post Office Users' National Council that he is considering a rise of l p for first and second-class mail. It is worth reminding the House that after inflation is taken into account, the first-class tariff is now about 13 per cent. lower than it was in 1981 and the second-class tariff is 26 per cent. lower. When one sets that against the quite considerable efficiency that the Post Office achieves, it shows that the Post Office does not have a bad record.

Mr. Key: My constituents reckon that the service is between 13 and 26 per cent. worse than it was some years ago. Although the expensive advertising campaign of the Post Office seeks to persuade us that inter-city postal services are very good, postal services in rural areas such as south Wiltshire have declined considerably. That is just not good enough.

Mr. Pattie: Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, I have to say that everybody tends to be

aware of postal letters or packets that do not arrive and to take completely for granted the letters that do arrive and which form the vast proportion of the mail. I am sure that the chairman of the Post Office will avidly read this exchange in Hansard and will note my hon. Friend's remarks.

Computer Research

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the new round of funding for computer research, ESPRIT II, proposed at the recent European Economic Community in Luxembourg.

Mr. Pattie: We have not yet received formal and detailed proposals for ESPRIT II, but we have made clear, in the Research Council, our strong support for programmes like ESPRIT which promote the competitiveness of European industry.

Mr. Wainwright: How do the Government propose to recover the ground on computer research and development which has already been lost to Japan and the United States? They will be unable to do so as long as they continue to spread thinly the relatively modest resources that they have put aside covering projects such as EUREKA, RACE, Alvey I and possibly Alvey II as well as ESPRIT. Would it not be much better to concentrate on the one scheme that is Communitywide and that would put the resources of Italy, Benelux, Spain, Denmark, and so on behind us?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman's question indicates, dare I say, a lack of depth on this matter. Those projects are not alternatives. There is no point in suggesting that we should concentrate entirely on a European programme if we do not at the same time maintain a reasonable national capability to complement that European activity.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree that there should be some depth in these matters, but have the Government reached any judgment about the effect on the ESPRIT programme of British and European participation in the strategic defence initiative programme?

Mr. Pattie: The short answer is no. The time scales involved are rather different. Participation in SDI envisages participation in various technology programmes which look at much longer-term requirements than the ESPRIT II or even ESPRIT I programme would involve.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister confirm that he is resisting Treasury pressure to treat every departmental contribution to European programmes as alternative funding that therefore involves a cut in national funds? The hon. Gentleman says that we must have a reasonable level of nationally-funded operations, but does he realise that unless we have very full funding for our national programmes we shall not be able to participate effectively in the European programmes? Will he therefore give an assurance that our contribution to Europe will not be made at the expense of United Kingdom programmes, and at the expense, in particular, of Alvey II?

Mr. Pattie: I am happy to confirm that. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), we are not talking about alternative or substitutional activities. It is important to put that on the record.

Ferguson Ailsa

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he is now considering for the Troon yard of Ferguson Ailsa.

Mr. Peter Morrison: We have accepted British Shipbuilders' decision that the operations at the Troon yard of Ferguson Ailsa should cease once the present order hook is complete. I understand that British Shipbuilders is now seeking potential buyers.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that when the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). the Secretary of State for Defence, recently visited the Ailsa yard at Troon he made two specific promises: that the Government would examine what orders, and particularly Ministry of Defence orders, might be brought forward; and that the Government would consider the report of the consultants Planning Industrial and Economic Development Advisers and the possibilities in it for the Troon yard? Will the Minister confirm that the right hon. Member for Ayr was speaking on behalf of the Government when he made those two pledges? When will we have a report on the result of those two promises? How will discussions now be undertaken with British Shipbuilders to ensure that it is aware of the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's promises?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter, he will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence always speaks on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the remarks that I and my right hon. Friend made during the debate on shipbuilding were concurrent.

Mr. Lambie: Despite the Minister's original answer and British Shipbuilders' decision to close the Troon yard, if Ferguson Ailsa wins another order will the Minister lean heavily on British Shipbuilders to ensure that the order is built at the Troon yard so that both yards can be kept open?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has attended our shipbuilding debates and he will appreciate that such decisions are for British Shipbuilders to make. It is for it to decide in which yards to place orders. However, I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sayeed: Though the difficulties of Troon are similar to those of other yards that are owned by British Shipbuilders, there being twice as many modern ships as there are cargoes to fill them, is there not a case for ensuring that ships and cargo rates are not dumped on the market by countries outside the EEC which are subsidising their shipbuilding and freight rates to such a great degree that British Shipbuilders and British shipping companies cannot compete?

Mr. Morrison: The simple answer to my hon. Friend is yes. That is precisely what we are discussing at the Council of Ministers for a successor to the fifth directive.

Westland Helicopters

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) had with officials on the morning of 24 January in relation

to the Westlands affair; what was the purpose of the meetings; and what conclusions were reached as to the action his predecessor should take.

Mr. Pattie: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) held several meetings on the morning of 24 January. Some of these related to Westland, and some were attended by officials. His meetings on Westland were held to inform himself of latest developments.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it conceivable that civil servants of the quality and integrity of Sir Brian Hayes would have advised the then Secretary of State to remain in office if they had thought that the full story had been one of deception by their Secretary of State of their Prime Minister and of themselves for over a fortnight? Is it not clear from Linklater and Leigh in "Not with Honour" and from other information that the strands of the spider's web led to No. 10 Downing street? Is not the lawyer's letter the real reason why the House did not have Friday 6 June?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman will know that all questions relating to advice offered by an official to a Minister are confidential. Any matters that he cares to deduce from the book that he has mentioned or any other work is entirely a matter for him.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that in the book to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred, while it is said that civil servants counselled the former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), to stay, the politicians present, who presumably included the Minister, gave contrary advice? Was that contrary advice — namely, that the former Secretary of State should resign — coloured by their knowledge of the machinations which had gone on both in the Department of Trade and Industry and at Downing street over the discreditable Westland affair?

Mr. Pattie: As it happens, I was chairing a seminar in the lower parts of the Department at that time. Therefore, I am unable to speculate on any of the reasons that any of my colleagues might have had for the statements that they made.

Export Statistics

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the combined total value of United Kingdom exports for 1985 to China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): United Kingdom exports to these countries amounted to £2·7 billion in 1985.

Mr. Chapman: As these countries are just some of those which on any criteria cannot be called free and democratic, will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain does much trading with undemocratic countries and countries with oppressive regimes? In considering the morality of trading with South Africa, should not the Government in all consistency examine their trading policies with at least some other evil and undemocratic countries?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Censorship, judicial execution—in many places in public


—and imprisonment without trial are all characteristics of the countries that he mentions and a number that he does not. Were these elements to be a bar to normal trading relations, our trade would be even more circumscribed than it looks like being at the present, but such judgments are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Madden: Has the Minister any information that the Government of Saudi Arabia are seeking to restrict travel by British citizens to Saudi Arabia to two airlines, British Caledonian and Saudia?

Mr. Clark: I have no such information, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his queston to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport on the next appropriate occasion.

Mr. Alexander: Did my hon. Friend see the reported comment this week by Mr. Jing Shupeng of the China International Trust and Investment Corporation Ltd. that British businesses were losing out because they were too expensive? Does that not underline the Government's concern that our businesses have far too heavy overheads and are still not really competitive in world markets?

Mr. Clark: There are a number of things that can contribute to a non-competitive cost in a business tender. Certainly Her Majesty's Government are doing their best to compensate for that by the soft loan facility which offers finance to projects in China at an extremely high level of subsidy.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that British high-tech trade to the Eastern bloc countries since the late 1970s has halved to £40 million and, at the same time, the United States high-tech trade to Eastern bloc countries has increased eight times since 1981, to $2 billion and is forecast to double again next year? When will the Government stand up to attempts by the United States to control British high-tech trade by using United States law in Britain, since it is now clearly being used to advantage the United States and disadvantage the United Kingdom high-tech industry?

Mr. Clark: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says and I regret this state of affairs very deeply. Her Majesty's Government are always ready to protect those firms which wish to resist—

Mr. Ashdown: Wet.

Mr. Clark: It is not that. I cannot put it in any stronger language. Her Majesty's Government are always ready to resist claims of extra-territoriality on the part of the United States, but in each case it has to be left to the commercial judgment of the firm concerned. If it is the firm's judgment that by so doing its status in relation to its primary supplier will be altered and damage its commercial prospects, who are we to override that?

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is best for individual traders to decide with whom they would like to trade rather than for Governments to attempt to impose sanctions?

Mr. Clark: Indeed, I welcome that. If traders make that choice and ask for our protection they will have it.

Oil Prices (Economic Effects)

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his most recent assessment of the impact of lower oil prices on the manufacturing and exporting base of the United Kingdom economy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Lower oil prices will benefit United Kingdom manufacturing and non-oil exports. They will provide the non-oil sector with a great opportunity to build on the substantial gains of the past five years and to expand output further.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that his Department must remain concerned about the effect that that will have specifically on the oil sector and the oil-related sector? Will he give his Department's view of the fact that the Chancellor based his entire Budget strategy on an average oil price levelling out this year at about $15 a barrel, but that the Scottish Development Agency has carried out a computer projection which has shown that if even that price is attained and persists it will lead to a 40 per cent. cut in spending by oil companies, with all the attendant catastrophic effects which that will have on the Scottish economy? What action does he propose to take?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman asked a direct question as to whether I still agree with the analysis in the Chancellor's Budget statement in terms of manufacturing output being at around a 3 per cent. increase this year. The answer is yes. I would expect the two to match each other. Therefore, I think that the Scottish economy can gain. The hon. Gentleman makes the point. For the oil sector there will be a compensation the other way round.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the competitive advantage of lower fuel oil costs will quickly be squandered if pay claims in manufacturing industry continue to be settled at levels above the rate of inflation?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. Ultimately, the increase in better productivity—and to be fair we have had much better productivity during the past five years—is the key to an expanding manufacturing sector and the ability to gain or regain markets.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister agree that it will be tragic for this country if, when the long-awaited upturn in world trade at last takes place as a result of the collapse in oil prices, we see yet another aspect of the Government's wanton destruction of manufacturing industry in their complete failure to invest oil revenue, so that we lack the breadth of industrial base to take advantage of the upturn? Do the Government not feel at all guilty over the fact that in the event of an upturn we shall be mere spectators and the new wealth and the new jobs will go to our competitors?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is being his usual pessimistic self. He will recall that a Select Committee report in another place predicted gloom and doom in the event of a substantial drop in the price of oil, but no one could have anticipated that that drop would take place in such a short period. Nevertheless, the outlook for the manufacturing sector remains extremely good.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that our main competitors will also benefit from lower costs so


it will not he so easy for us? Heavy engineering uses a great deal of energy. Will he impress on the Secretary of State for Energy that it is crucial that energy costs to industry in this country should fall by at least as much as for our competitors in other countries?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that we live in an international market-place so we must ensure that our productivity gains are as good as, if not better than, those of our international competitors. I also agree that the cost of energy, especially for heavy users, is a key element in that productivity.

Mr. Wilson: Given the previous concentration of the oil industry in Scotland, is it not simplistic for the Minister to assume that any of the benefits of lower oil prices will extend to the Scottish economy in view of the spending cuts that have taken place? Will he consult the Scottish Development Agency for an assessment, and if it is shown that Scotland will suffer particularly adversely as a result of the fall in oil prices will the Government restore the cuts in regional aid that they made two years ago?

Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, with my responsibilities for regional policy, I keep closely alongside the Scottish Development Agency. He should he aware that at present the agency is looked upon eagerly and with some envy for its great success and ability to attract new industries to Scotland, and I congratulate it on that.

Unfair Trade Unit

Mr. Sumberg: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about his Department's new unfair trade unit.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to take steps to improve the way in which complaints by British firms about unfair trading practices by foreign competitors within and without the European Community are dealt with by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Clark: On 13 May I announced the formation of the unfair trade unit to co-ordinate work on complaints about all forms of unfair practices in international trade. I intend the new unit to enable the Department to respond more quickly to such complaints. The establishment of the unit does not represent any change in policy away from open international trade and towards protectionism.

Mr. Sumberg: While I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the establishment of the new unit, which I believe will have a useful part to play, may I ask whether he is aware that many business men, and especially those in the paper industry in my constituency, feel that they are suffering as a result of unfair foreign trade practices but are not sure how to tackle the problem and to whom they should go for advice? What support can my hon. Friend offer business men in general and the paper industry in particular?

Mr. Clark: That is precisely the kind of instance for which the new unit has been set up. Unfair trading can arise from a number of sources—as a result of dumping, for which there are recognised procedures, as a result of subsidies, agency arrangemens in restraint, counterfeiting, and so on. If my hon. Friend's constituent will write to the

Department the matter will be referred to the unit and he will receive immediate advice on appropriate steps to try to obtain redress.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that many British firms are mystified as Ito what to do about unfair competition from abroad? Even Government Departments seem to be unaware of the facilities that can be offered by the unfair trade unit and its predecessor. They are not co-ordinated in Brussels, so often the reaction there to a complaint is indifferent and off-putting. Will my hon. Friend assure us that this unit will adopt a public identity that will counteract the previous tendencies of other Government Departments, and will he ensure that it gets all the resources that it needs?

Mr. Clark: Certainly that is my intention. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends for allowing me to publicise this in the Chamber. The anti-dumping unit was concerned only with the narrower question of dumping. The unfair trade unit has been expanded and is intended precisely to embrace all the different aspects of unfair trade that in many cases baffle business men. As my hon. Friend has said, they do not know how to start correcting them. I hope that all my hon. Friends and all Opposition Members will take note of the existence of the new unit and will encourage their constituents to refer cases to me so that I may pass them on to the unit for immediate investigation.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that one of the unfair trade practices that baffles the public is that which allows mountains of food and lakes of drink to accumulate when people are starving? Will this unit deal with that source of unfairness, or turn a blind eye to it?

Mr. Clark: The unit is concerned with imports.

Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the reprehensible practice of some foreign companies of cross-subsidisation between subsidiaries to conceal the true cost of their products? A textile manufacturing firm in my constituency called Bentley Engineering has been hit particularly by this reprehensible practice.

Mr. Janner: It is in my constituency.

Mr. Spencer: Can my hon. Friend assure us that such activity will be within the purview of the unit?

Mr. Clark: Certainly it will be considered. Such activity is difficult to trace, for obvious reasons, but I should not want a case not to be referred to the unit simply because it seemed to be too difficult or elusive. I should be glad if my hon. and learned Friend would write to me about that.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that in order to extend the freedom of international trade it is essential to have strong defences against economic warfare conducted against us by contries where export trading is in the hands of the state? If so, can he reassure the House that his welcome unfair trade unit will not be handicapped and shackled by crude numerical reductions in the manpower of the Civil Service?

Mr. Clark: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best to ensure that that does not happen. I do not see any sign of it.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that for six years we have been promised that the country that indulges in more unfair trade practices than any other country on the face of the earth, Japan, would be dealt


with? Does this mean that at long last those promises will become fact and that the Japanese will have to compete fairly rather than being allowed to destroy one high-tech industry after another when it does not suit them to have competition? Will they keep their word at long last?

Mr. Clark: Whether they keep their word is a matter for them. Certainly those who have doubts that they may should be fortified by the promulgation of the unit. Indeed, I expect that imports from Japan are likely to be among the first to feature in the programme. The two successful anti-dumping cases in the last year both related to Japanese products.

Japan

Mr. Pollock: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to follow up the initiative of the Prime Minister at the Tokyo summit when she pressed the Japanese Prime Minister to remove the tax-duty discrimination faced by Scotch whisky bottled in Scotland.

Mr. Alan Clark: We are continuing to press strongly for the removal of Japanese discrimination in the tax and duty facing Scotch whisky and other imported alcoholic drinks. The European Community is to have further talks with the Japanese shortly, and we continue to take every opportunity to press the case bilaterally.

Mr. Pollock: Although I am encouraged by that reply, may I ask whether the Government made it clear to the Japanese authorities that their grading of liquor taxes represents a tax on quality, and therefore discriminates strongly and unfairly against this unique quality product from Scotland? Has it been pointed out to the Japanese that if we were to indulge in similar fiscal tactics against Japanese products, which are equally strong in their market sector, that might be a lesson which they would begin to understand?

Mr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of Scotch whisky. The Japanese practice of grading alcoholic drinks is practically impossible to define in any sense which makes it possible to contest it. For example, Bourbon whisky is rated lower in duty terms than Scotch whisky, although the price is the same. My suspicion is that this relates more to political relations between Japan and the United States than to some abstruse factor in the grading.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister give more information about the state of the welcome bilateral pressure to which he referred? Which of our European allies are being more helpful to the United Kingdom and the constituency needs of the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), myself and others north of the border, and which are being less helpful in regard to this disgraceful exhibition of protectionism and disincentive against a United Kingdom export to Japan?

Mr. Clark: While the Community is putting together a case to take to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, it would be invidious of me to differentiate between those which are in favour and those which have reservations. The House knows that, regrettably, we are to some extent circumscribed in the multilateral trading system by being a signatory of the treaty of Rome and by the GATT. In the last resort, when those inhibitions continue to restrict

action and abuse continues without adequate control or compensation, and if we cannot get the support of our Community partners in a European initiative, we would certainly have to consider unilateral action.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many products that can be described as quality products and that they can be manufactured anywhere, but that Scotch whisky is unique and can be manufactured only in Scotland. It is the product of Scotland and is regarded by the Scots as their flag bearer, as 90 per cent. of the product is exported. If the Japanese are allowed to get away with the practices in which they have indulged recently, others might decide to follow, and that could be very damaging for the Scottish industry.

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Discrimination also exists in Korea and we are doing our best to correct that. When, two weeks ago, I was in Korea, I had talks on this subject. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I found the Koreans more receptive to our view than the Japanese have so far managed to be.

Mr. John Smith: The Minister told us a little while ago that his judgment is that the Japanese are exercising political discrimination in favour of the United States in respect of Bourbon whisky and, presumably, political discrimination against the United Kingdom in respect of Scotch whisky. Will he tell us what political action the Government intend to take?

Mr. Clark: I should have thought that there was very little that we could do, short of increasing our gross national product to approximately the same level as that of the United States. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a special relationship, if one can use that phrase without being discourteous, between Japan and the United States, and I believe that the arrangement is in recognition of that. If we had the clout, I do not doubt that the Japanese would accede immediately. The fact is, however, that there is no comparison between the leverage which the United States can exert on Japan and that which we can exert.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacting industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month six years ago.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Manufacturing output in April 1986 is estimated at 104·4 based on the 1980 average of 100. This is 1 per cent. higher than in April 1980.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that manufacturing output has not only fallen over the last six years but that it is substantially lower than it was in 1973? Is he aware that 1973 was 13 years ago, and can he think of any comparable period since the industrial revolution when manufacturing output in this country fell?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that manufacturing output fell between 1973 and 1979 by 4 per cent. — the five years of the last Labour Administration. However, in the last five years, output has increased by 11 per cent.

Mr. James Hamilton: Contrary to what the Minister has said, according to the CBI there has been a dramatic fall in manufacturing output, and without a booming


manufacturing industry other jobs fall by the wayside. Will the Minister re-phrase his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) and give the exact figure?

Mr. Morrison: I am quite happy to give the exact figure. Manufacturing output continued to fall from 1979 to 1981, which means that the current level is below the 1979 level. I am concerned. However, during the last five years, output has increased by 11 per cent.

Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems of manufacturing industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s were almost directly the result of the hyperinflation from which this country was suffering? Surely the best help for manufacturing is to get ourselves competitive and to keep inflation down to the level that this Government have achieved.

Mr. Morrison: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but one could add several other elements. Perhaps it had something to do with very low productivity and the fact that strikes were very much to the fore during that period. That has a lot to do with output going down. Equally, now that the strike record is a lot better, it has a lot to do with output going up in a very satisfactory way.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister not agree that the position in the last seven years has been the worst in British history since records began? Does his concern take him so far as to analyse the position in competing countries? If so, does he not accept that Britain's record is far worse than that of our competitors and that the competitors who have fared very well indeed have been those whose Governments have taken an entirely different approach from that adopted by the present United Kingdom Administration? Does he not think that there are lessons to learn from our competitors?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard in an answer to a previous question, I am always concerned about our relative position in the international market place. I agree that we must look very carefully indeed at our Japanese, German and United States competitors and,g where we can, learn lessons. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also note that since 1980 we have had a 30 per cent. increase in output per head. That is a very satisfactory base on which to build.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has just quoted might be even better if there were a little more sympathy and compatibility between VAT deadlines and actual trade credit? Will he have a word with industry and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to see whether they can improve cash flow in business?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend would expect, I am always concerned to convey to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury particular aspects that bear directly on how they are able to operate in industry, and I shall certainly take his comments on board.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister recollect that world trade in manufactures has increased by more than 17 per cent. since this Government came to office? Will he now give us the figure which until now he has so coyly avoided? How much lower is manufacturing output today than it was in 1979?

Mr. Morrison: I am not avooiding it. In fact, I had not been asked that question until the right hon. Gentleman put it to me. There has been a fall of 6 per cent. since 1979. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the good news, but he will appreciate that the major fall happened in the first two years, and since then there has been a very significant increase over the following five years.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that output in manufacturing industry would be much higher if British manufacturing industry were even more competitive than it is now? One factor in that is the unrealistic increase in wages that has taken place in recent years. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the representatives of manufacturing industry spent less time wailing about factors beyond their control, such as interest rates and exchange rates, and more time considering matters within their control, such as wage rates, the state of British manufacturing industry would be much better?

Mr. Morrison: I agree in part with my hon. Friend, but I do not think that the picture is as black as he likes to paint it. Obviously I agree with his main premise that the better the productivity, the greater the output. From my visits to every part of the country I know that productivity gains in many companies, both old and new, are significant. In those companies employment is now secure, whereas it was not secure seven years ago.

Foreign Goods (Dumping)

Mr. Hayes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing about the dumping of foreign goods in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Clark: Anti-dumping action is the responsibility of the European Commission. My Department works closely with United Kingdom industry on the preparation of complaints in order to ensure that appropriate protection is given against unfair competition.

Mr. Hayes: This is all very well and interesting, but is my hon. Friend truly satisfied that the anti-dumping process is sufficiently rapid and effective? If he is not, what will he do about it? Many of my constituents are sick to death of trying to trade with one arm tied behind their backs.

Mr. Clark: I would like it if my hon. Friend could give me specific instances rather than say that a number of his constituents are trading with one arm tied behind their backs. I am keen to help them. It is my principal purpose in this position to assist firms that have suffered from handicaps of this type. If he cares to give me the details.. I will see what can be done. I agree that at present the procedures are rather cumbersome and long drawn-out., and that in many cases the onus of proof is higher than one would like, especially in regard to proving injury, but to some extent we are the captive of Community and GATT rules. To say that nothing is being done is unfair. At present we are involved in 14 cases and further cases are under review. If my hon. Friend passes his constituents" cases on to me, I do not doubt that we shall have some more.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I am aware that the Government are not doing very well on this problem? I realise that the Minister is trying his best to renegotiate


the multi-fibre arrangement, but with the Government's attitude it appears that anybody can come from anywhere in the world and dump what they like on these shores. It is about time the Treasury Bench applied for the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Clark: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, as I am to all hon. Members who express their indignation at what is going on in the so-called international free trading arena. I accept much of the argument that they put to me. Will they give me the benefit of the doubt in the sense that the unfair trade unit itself has been in existence for less than a month and I am doing my best to correct these cases? However, I depend on hon. Members for reference of individual cases. The unit is set up, the personnel are there and we are ready to examine in detail every case that is referred to us.

Sir Anthony Grant: If my hon. Friend wants a specific incident, is he aware that at present in docklands there is a large silo of cement which the Greeks are seeking to dump on the British market? Is he aware that that would cause great harm to British makers of cement, such as Rugby Portland Cement in my constituency? Will he look into the matter and do his best to ensure that an antidumping application is pursued with all due vigour in Brussels?

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House must forgive me if I read. It is the first time this afternoon. Both my Department and the Department of the Environment have maintained close contact with the cement industry and are fully aware of the concern expressed at the threat from an increased level of low price imports. The European Commission has completed the necessary investigation and a formal announcement of its findings is expected shortly.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most up-to-date state of the United Kingdom balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Mr. Pattie: In the three months ended April there was a deficit of £1·1 billion.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister not have an iota of shame in him when he stands at the Dispatch Box month after month giving an appalling account of his stewardship? Does the Minister realise that if he were in charge of an industrial manufacturing company he would be sacked for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty?

Mr. Pattie: I offer the hon. Gentleman and the House some figures which I think will assist the hon. Gentleman in taking a sensible view of the matter. In 1970 the value of exports of manufactures was 50 per cent. higher than imports. In 1985 the value of exports of manufactures was 10 per cent. lower than imports. Over that 15-year period there had been a decline. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that British consumers had formed the view that British-produced goods were not well enough produced, well enough designed, properly priced or adequately supported by after-sales service. They had voted with their cheque books and bank accounts to buy imported goods. That is the criticism of the manufacturing industry.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend appreciative of the detrimental effects on the balance of trade if British

Airways buys American engines rather than Rolls-Royce engines? In the circumstances, will he convey to the chairman of British Airways that hon. Members feel strongly that Rolls-Royce should get the order, in the interests of the British aerospace and aero-engine industry?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure that the chairman of British Airways reads the Official Report with the same attention as the chairman of the Post Office, to whom I referred earlier. I hope that he will read the opinion by my hon. Friend. We are in close touch with the Department of Transport on the matter and we hope for a satisfactory outcome.

Mr. John Smith: I thought that I heard the Minister say in an earlier answer that the deficit in the first quarter of 1986 was £1·1 billion. If that is correct, is it a revision of the figure of £1·4 billion, which is in the latest statistics issued by his Department? In addition, will the Minister tell us why he thinks it is adequate to blame British industry for the deficit in our trade and to accept no responsibility whatsoever for the policies of the Government, which have been deeply inimical to the success of British manufacturing industry?

Mr. Pattie: Yes, I will. I attempted to give a 15-year view of the fact that the manufacturing capability of this country appears, over that period—under successive Governments — to have been unable to meet the requirements of a variety of different markets both abroad and in this country. Therefore, companies find that their prospects and sales diminish and some go out of business. Then we have complaints from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The answer is to follow policies, which the Government are doing, which improve the competitiveness of companies in this country so that their products and services will be more attractive.

Information Technology

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the present level of encouragement given by the information technology and electronics based industries to information technology training and skill development in education.

Mr. Pattie: I welcome the steps taken by some leading firms to promote the provision of relevant education and training. But, as my hon. Friend pointed out in his recent study, there is room for industry to collaborate much more with the education system at all levels to meet skill requirements.

Mr. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is it true that the plethora of Government schemes, some of them run by the Department of Employment and some by his own Department, and the plethora of training schemes run by private industry are, in many ways, confusing? Is it not time that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment, and industry tried to get together to work out some national system of training on the German model?

Mr. Pattie: I do not know whether the German model is necessarily the best one to follow. There is a great deal of activity at present. Industry has set up the information technology skills agency and yesterday the ACARD report on the future of the software industry in the United


Kingdom was issued. One of the report's main recommendations was that British industry should place major emphasis on training, which is very much to be welcomed.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the ACARD report, which no doubt he has read—

Mr. Pattie: indicated assent.

Mr. Robinson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has read it. Is he aware that, reading between the lines, the report amounts to a terrible indictment of the Government because of their neglect to provide real support measures for the software industry? That sector is growing even more rapidly than the information technology industry as a whole. For example, in 10 years' time, 40 per cent. of IBM's total revenue will come from software sales. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that urgent action needs to be taken by the Government? We want not words from him but action by his Department.

Mr. Pattie: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been reading the same report. The report's analysis is substantially in line with the measures that we are already taking. The report contains interesting ideas. In line with our response to all ACARD reports, we shall consider this one carefully and, no doubt, report in the autumn.

Exports (Departmental Assistance)

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to assist British industry to secure major export contracting and other orders.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department provides a wide range of services for all exporters through the BOTB and ECGD. For the larger orders these can include assistance towards the cost of bidding as well as support with financial packages.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that British Shipbuilders is pursuing a large order from China which, if won, would result in vessels being built at Govan Shipbuilders, a successful yard on the. Clyde where a number of my constituents work? Will my hon. Friend assure me that his Department will spare no efforts in enabling British Shipbuilders, and ultimately Govan Shipbuilders, to be successful in winning this important order?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware. of what British Shipbuilders is doing in trying to get that order from China. I can give him the assurance also that the Department is doing everything possible to help British Shipbuilders to secure that order. I shall personally keep closely in touch on this matter.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Speaker: Private notice question. Mr. Denzil Davies.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it directly connected with questions?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is directly connected with this whole matter, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Which whole matter? We have not considered it yet.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we shall have four items, either private notice questions or ministerial statements. On average, they will take half an hour each, which means that the main debate, for which the House has prepared itself, is not likely to start until 5.30 pm. Bearing in mind that at least three of these items are not of such monumental importance that they could not be dealt with on another day, why is it that on some days we have no statements, although the House must know that such issues will be brought up, yet today we are to have four statements, which means that an important debate cannot start until at least 5.30 pm? Who makes up his mind about this nonsense?

Mr. Speaker: It is not my decision. It is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. Denzil Davies: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his decision to halt the sale of the ROFs.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): The House was informed last October that, subject to the normal caveats of trading performance and stock market conditions, we hoped that Royal Ordnance plc would move to the private sector in mid-1986. Since then, planning has been in train for a stock market flotation this summer. As I announced to the House in a written answer yesterday, however, although substantial progress has been made in the process of transforming Royal Ordnance into a fully fledged commercial entity, it has not been possible to take this far enough and to have in place all the features necessary to provide the basis for a successful flotation this summer. It remains my intention to privatise Royal Ordnance, and I am giving further consideration to the means of achieving this.

Mr. Davies: To the right hon. Gentleman's discredit, and he knows it, he has had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to give his answer on the Royal Ordnance factories. He had hoped that yesterday at 3.14 pm, during Defence Questions, he could slip the announcement through, but the plan failed. The right hon. Gentleman did not even have the guts to come to the Dispatch Box to make a proper statement about it.
For the three years before the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State we argued, both in the Chamber and outside the House, that the Government's plan to sell off the ordnance factories was not only nonsense but extremely damaging to the factories, to the employees and to the national defence interest. The Government did not listen. Inurned in their ideological tomb, they had no time for rational thought or reasoned argument.
While all that was going on and all the money was being spent, the ordnance factories were getting thinner. When the Government started this process the factories were valued at about £400 million, but that figure was rapidly reduced, until a few months ago an optimistic view in the City would have set their value at £150 million. That was one measure, although not the only one, of the damage that the Government have inflicted on the Royal Ordnance factories.
What is to happen? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that before the next general election he will not further dismember the ordnance factories but will return them to the status of a trading fund, in which the Government found them? Secondly, what will happen to those employees who lost their jobs as part of what was euphemistically described as preparation for privatisation? Ministers can walk away, as two did during the Committee stage. Merchant bankers, stockbrokers and management consultants can walk to the banks with fat fees paid by the taxpayers, but those who worked in the factories can walk nowhere except to the employment exchange.
Thirdly, how much has the operation cost the taxpayer over the past three years both in fees to private consultants and in time and man hours used in the Civil Service? Finally, will the Government learn from this lesson, drop the damaging plans to privatise the royal dockyards and stop that privatisation before more damage is done?

Mr. Younger: I have not heard such a good example of making bricks without straw for a long time. I do not intend to join the right hon. Gentleman in his ideological tomb. It remains the Government's belief that it would be better for the Royal Ordnance factories to be privatised—

Mr. Jack Straw: Why?

Mr. Younger: —for the many reasons on which our original plan to do so was based, which are that, to have a successful future— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) might find it more helpful to hear what I have to say, even if he disagrees with it.
If the industry is to have a more successful future, it must rely for its future not only on home but on export orders. It has a much better chance of getting better export markets if it is in the private sector and fully competitive. For that reason, privatisation must still be the objective.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other questions, I cannot give him an undertaking that before the next general election the ordnance factories will be restored to the status of a trading fund, because the Government have no intention of going back to that solution. The position of the employees who lost their jobs earlier on, has nothing to do with the present postponment of privatisation, which is all that I have announced today. As to cost, it is too early to say what the cost of advice. And so on, would have been at this stage, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know and tables a question I shall he happy to find that information for him. As to t he dockyards, this is a wholly different situation, with a wholly different solution, and my announcement makes no difference to the intentions for them.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, if not all, Conservative Members thinks that it is right to pursue a policy of privatisation, as we won the general election on it? When will the revised timetable go ahead? Will he pay tribute to Mr. Bryan Basset for all that he has done in the early work to try to effect that which we hope will come to fruition before long?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. and learned Friend and echo his view that we are greatly indebted to Mr. Basset and the management of Royal Ordnance for the tremendous efforts that they have been making over recent weeks. As to the principle, the House will understand that when the decision is taken to go for a flotation on the market, it is essential that that should be done only when the company is clearly in the right state to make that flotation successful. In our judgment, the company is not at present in such a state as to make certain a really successful flotation. Again I hope and think that the House and my hon. and learned Friend will agree that if that is the case, it is very much wiser not to go ahead until it is in a proper state for a successful flotation.

Mr. James Wallace: Is the Secretary of State in a position to confirm to the House that one of the most important factors in this decision was the protest from Vickers about the placing of orders for Challenger tanks with Royal Ordnance and that the Government did not allow any competition for that order? If that is true, does it not blow a great hole in the Government's much vaunted competition policy?

Mr. Younger: No decision has yet been taken about the order to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As I have said, the criterion for this decision was whether the company was really ready for a successful flotation. Our judgment is that it is not yet ready and that we must wait until it is.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, apart from the problems of the Challenger order, the judgment of the management of the Royal Ordnance factories was that they were ready? Will he say something about the central issue, which is not whether or not the Royal Ordnance factories should be privatised, but in what way, because it is being reported that the Department of Trade and Industry now wants to sell off piecemeal, in a privatised form, the whole operation. This is very important, because it will lower competition and result in the loss of many jobs in a city like Leeds.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite right to locus on those two points. As to the judgment whether this was the right moment to float the company, I do not say, and I have not said, that it would have been impossible, but think my hon. Friend will agree that, with all sorts of obligations to the House and everywhere else, it would be right to be able to justify this as being the best moment to go for flotation, and we consider that that is not so. As for other options, I said in my answer that we shall now consider a broad range of other options for privatisation., but of course it is too early to say which will prove to be the right one.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does not this sorry tale prove that the Public Accounts Committee was right to say that privatisation should not go ahead until the opening balance sheet assessment had been made? Unless we know the economic value of the company, how can we try to sell it? How can we convince the taxpayer that he is getting the proper price for the assets that we are selling? A number of assets have been sold below cost, and it is to the shame of this Government that they are not making sure that this does not happen again.

Mr. Younger: I think that the right hon. Gentleman may be missing the point slightly. Of course he is right, and the Public Accounts Committee under his leadership is also right, to say that we cannot impose a flotation without having all the facts. We should have had all those facts if flotation had gone ahead, but the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, will surely agree, with his responsibilities to the Public Accounts Committee and otherwise, that to justify a flotation it is necessary to demonstrate that a proper price is being obtained and that an effective flotation is being carried through. As our judgment was that that could not be done at present, I hope he will feel that we were right not to proceed.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: It took some time for the work force to appreciate and reconcile itself to the principle and effect of privatisation. This was achieved by reason of the fact that it was to be the Royal Ordnance plc, an integrated whole. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the time comes for privatisation this will still be the case and that the Royal Ordnance factories will not be sold off piecemeal?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the acclimatisation of the Royal Ordnance employees to privatisation, and I reaffirm that it remains our objective to achieve the privatisation of Royal Ordnance. I cannot give the undertaking that my hon. Friend requests about the way in which it will be done, because, as I have already said, we are still reviewing all the possible options for privatisation from now on.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State not understand that when he refers to a successful future for the Royal Ordnance factories, thousands of ROF employees, including hundreds in my constituency, have paid for the privatisation policy of this Government with their jobs? —[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true"] Yes, it is true, and Conservative Members know it, and the country knows it. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and have the guts to admit at the Dispatch Box that one of the policies that he is now looking at is selling off the different bits of Royal Ordnance plc piecemeal?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman does not usually talk rubbish, but it is absolute rubbish to say that any member of the staff of Royal Ordnance has paid for any part of this with his job. The number of jobs in Royal Ordnance is determined by the amount of work that the factories have and whether they are competitive enough to obtain orders, wherever they are. As I have said, we are considering what is the best option for the future.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since it became a plc the Nottingham factory has an expanded order book and an increased work force. Regrettable as the delay is, will my right hon. Friend assure me that if there is to be a reconsideration of the method of selling the ordnance factories, the unprofitable Leeds group, which is grouped with the Nottingham factory, will not hamper full independence for the Nottingham factory?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's latter point. Such considerations will have to be looked into when we consider all the options for the future. My hon. Friend said that the Nottingham factory's work force has expanded since privatisation, and I am not sure where that leaves the hon. Member for Blackburn, in view of his extraordinary remarks earlier.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his comments this afternoon will add greatly to the fears that already exist among the labour force in Leeds? The workers have already sacrificed their jobs for privatisation, and they now run the risk of losing more because of the lack of Challenger tank orders and the fact that the Minister seems to prefer to break up the Royal Ordnance factories and sell them in parts? When will the Government look after those workers who have given so much for Britain on so many occasions? Do the Minister and the Government not have some moral responsibility towards them?

Mr. Younger: There seems to be a change of tack among Opposition Members who have for some time been at pains to say—incorrectly—that the work force was not in favour of privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman is changing his tack now, he should say so. I have made no decision to break up the Royal Ordnance factories, and I thought that I had made that clear.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the period or preparation for privatisation the Royal Ordnance factories have been negotiating the sale or long lease of some plants, including one in my constituency? Can he assure me that the postponement in no way prejudices the present negotiations, because the work force and myself want an assured future for those at the Powfoot plant?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can give him that assurance. The postponement makes no material difference to that situation, about which I know he is extremely concerned.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Secretary of State recall a matter that was raised a moment ago? A number of us are interested in Barnbow in Leeds. The matter of Nottingham and the plant there being profitable was mentioned. The work force at Barnbow was told that it would he better off after privatisation, but it is now not to be privatised. Did I get an inkling that because Nottingham is profitable and has been given orders there will be even more redundancies in Leeds as a result?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman would be wrong to draw any such conclusion, nor have we decided that privatisation is not to go ahead. I have said only that the flotation cannot go ahead in July as planned. The future of any form of organisation will depend on the amount of orders that all the Royal Ordnance factories get and I hope that they will obtain as many orders as they can.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have consistently been in favour of privatisation will not necessarily be displeased at the delay in the flotation of the company on the market, as this will give more time to examine all the issues involved and to get them right when it happens? Would he care to say a word about the problems of Royal Ordnance with the competitive tendering policy of his Department particularly in relation to foreign companies? Finally, is he aware that we do not take kindly to Opposition Members launching an attack on the Government about redundancies in Royal Ordnance factories, when, under their control, as many jobs, if not more, were lost through redundancies?

Mr. Straw: That is not true.

Mr. Atkins: If the facts are checked, Labour Members will be able to confirm that that is true.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct to say that there were a large number of redundancies indeed when the Labour party had responsibility for the factories.
My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point — the weight to be placed on the Opposition's alleged indignation about the matter. If I had announced today that we were going ahead with flotation on a basis that was not altogether clearly advantageous, we can imagine what the Opposition would have said. They would rightly have severely criticised us, and for that reason we can place little credence in their synthetic indignation.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's anxiety to sell off the Royal Ordnance factories should not be allowed in any way to hamper the supply of much needed equipment for


the armed forces? Can he assure the House that the Government's efforts to get out of the mess that they are in will in no way delay the placing of much needed orders for the Challenger tank?

Mr. Younger: The decision on the Challenger tank will be taken on the basis of the best possible value and delivery and on other such factors. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. He asked about the supply of equipment to the armed forces. There is no reason why the change should make any difference to that, and I agree with him that it is a mater of great importance.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) spoke about the Nottingham Royal Ordnance factory and the stability of the work force. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at one time the work force at Nottingham declined from about 2,000 to just over 1,000? That happened under the old trading status, and the growth in the labour force at Nottingham has occurred solely during its current plc status.
Can my right hon. Friend say something about the difference between the management structure of the old system and the management structure of the new system? Can he tell us what benefits that gives the present plc management, whether or not the company is privatised, in going out and getting business that was denied to the company under the old system? Will he give some assurances to my work force in Nottingham?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. It seems that recent efforts by the Nottingham factory management have been fruitful and productive, and my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that.

In terms of the future of the various Royal Ordnance factories and the jobs in them, I have to tell the House that it is the gaining of orders, especially export orders, that will make the difference to all these factories. I hope that management will go ahead and make the factories as competitive as possible, in order to obtain the best possible level of orders.

Mr. Denis Healey: I agree with the Minister that it is the state of the order book that determines the date of sale if privatisation is intended. Will the Minister confirm that it was his intention last week to announce that the Challenger tank order would be given to the Leeds factory? The placing of that order is at his disposal. On Saturday he was dissuaded from taking that decision by the intervention of a private firm which is a well-known supporter of the Conservative party. All his plans are now falling to pieces because he is not now able to give the Challenger order to Leeds. The Leeds factory has a long history, going back to the beginning of the last war, of being the best provider of main battle tanks to Britain. Many people believe that it makes the best main battle tanks in the world.

Mr. Younger: I share the views of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about the excellent work carried out at the Leeds factory. He is right to draw attention to that. I am glad of his confirmation of something that has not been agreed by many of his colleagues, namely, that it is the state of the order hook that will determine the future of the factories, wherever they are. There was never any intention to announce any Challenger order next Saturday. As I have said, the decision on that order will be taken on the basis of the best price and the best factory.

Social Security Benefits (Students)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, I should like to make a statement about social security benefits and students.
In January the Government published proposals which were a first step to channelling support for students more through the educational maintenance system than the social security system. I referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee and I am today publishing the committee's report together with the Government's response to it. I am also laying before the House amended regulations which take account of its views and those of the local authority associations and others expressed during the consultation period.
It remains the Government's view that in the long term it cannot be sensible that students should be subject to two separate but intertwined systems of support. It cannot be satisfactory to have students permanently dependent upon a system which is primarily designed for those who, for various reasons, cannot work rather than for those who have withdrawn voluntarily from the labour market to study. The vast majority of comments to the Social Security Advisory Committee supported the principle of rationalising student support. But at the same time three main concerns were expressed.
First, there was concern that the major change proposed to housing benefit, whereby the accommodation element in the grant would be taken fully into account when assessing housing benefit entitlement, would cause a wide range of losses. The Social Security Advisory Committee shared that concern while at the same time recognising the case in principle for the change. Although there is no doubt that the present rules treat students more favourably than other claimants, the Government are prepared to withdraw that proposal.
Second, there was concern that in relation to the withdrawal of housing benefit for accommodation left unoccupied in the summer vacation some students would not have time to change existing plans and commitments. We recognise their concern and, therefore, this measure will not take effect until the summer of 1987, as we accept that students who have already entered into rent commitments for this summer could face difficulties.
Third, there was concern about the position of students without an award who have begun their studies on the assumption that they would continue to draw benefit at the current level. We accept that we should protect the most vulnerable of these—existing students living away from their parents' homes. Those students will be treated as now for housing benefit—in respect of privat rented accommodation in term time and the short vacations— up to 1 April 1988, or when their present course ends.
The remainder of the Government's proposals are largely unchanged. We shall remove entitlement to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit in the short vacations when students are already provided for through the grant. We shall simplify housing benefit administration by averaging grant income for the whole of the grant-assisted period. Students in halls of residence will in future be able to claim housing benefit only during the long vacation, for which there is no provision in the grant.
Our proposal to make a £36 additional increase in the grant still stands and is an important step to the long-term

aim of shifting student support away from the social security system. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there are important issues to be discussed before making further progress towards that aim. This raises a question of a wider review of student support and that will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in his statement shortly.
Our other proposals have been widely welcomed and will go forward. We shall extend help under the students' dependants' hardship scheme to cover the full year for two-parent families, as well as single parents. We shall disregard for housing benefit those parts of the grant which cover books and travelling expenses. That change will now take effect for the academic year 1987–88. We shall provide a firm legal basis for treating students' income from parental covenants so that it does not affect their claims to benefit during the summer vacation.
The Government's long-term aim of removing students from the benefit system has been widely welcomed and accepted in principle. It cannot be right that generations of students should be encouraged to depend on social security. We set out our proposals five months ago and we have responded carefully to the comments made upon them. I believe that the proposals I have described today represent sensible steps towards rationalising provision for students, and reducing their dependence on benefits.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we welcome the fact that students will at least now not be made homeless by housing benefit cuts this summer vacation, he is still proceeding with substantial benefit cuts for students which will not be adequately compensated for by the grant system? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his proposals will cause severe losses to up to 250,000 students who are caught in the crossfire between the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the two-month delay in making this statement, since he had the damning SSAC report at the end of March, has accentuated the difficulties particularly for mature students and for those from poor backgrounds, because several housing benefit offices, such as those at Reading, Aberdeen and Dundee, have already been refusing to allow students to sign on? Will he therefore issue immediate instructions to all DHSS offices to meet students entitlements in full this summer?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, while the Opposition understand the principle that students should be supported by grants and not by means of the social security budget, we do not accept that benefits should be cut sharply before an adequate alternative grant system is formulated and implemented? The mere promise of a review of grant in the light of the aborting of the previous one is a wholly insufficient substitute.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that student entitlement to social security benefit has been growing solely because of the diminishing value of the grant, which has fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Is he aware that what is proposed today is scarcely a genuine review when students are being squeezed by the DHSS while proper compensation from the DES slips further into the future?
How does the Secretary of State justify failing to improve on the original and miserly £36 compensation a


year for loss of housing benefit during the short vacations? Why does he not admit that he is looking to parents to met at least one third of the losses?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his continued insistence on removing entitlement to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit at Christmas and Easter is tantamount to saying that students should not be available to work in the short vacations? The falling real value of the student grant means that they need to find work or to claim benefit to get by.
This statement means that, contrary to the clear prescription of their own advisers and contrary to natural justice, the Government still intend to take money away from students on the basis of a vague promise of some future IOU. That is wrong-headed and unjust. The Secretary of State should withdraw all these benefit cuts until the grant review is completed.

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He says that he understands the principle of seeking to reduce students' reliance upon the social security system. I hope that he supports that principle because that was the position of the majority who gave evidence to the Advisory Committee. There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations when they come forward.
The hon. Gentleman is not right in his generalisation about losses. Indeed, 140,000 students will gain from our proposals. As a result of our concessions, many fewer housing benefit losses will take place. Students are not normally affected by losses from more than one source.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many losses?

Mr. Fowler: As losses are not cumulative, it is not possible to provide that information.

Mr. Skinner: How many?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman understood the means whereby — [Interruption.] It is not possible to work out exactly what the losses are and the number of students who will be losing because the losses are not cumulative.
We are seeking to return to a position where help for students is channelled through the educational maintenance system. That must be right. Only a few years ago no students claimed from the social security system and now most do, at an annual cost approaching £120 million. Claims by students for housing benefit have come literally only in the past three or four years. It has not been the housing benefit system that has created that demand.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has failed to understand the significant concessions that we are making. For example, there is the concession of deferring the removal of housing benefit for unoccupied accommodation in the long vacation. Another concession is the decision not to proceed with the new method of calculating housing benefit. These are substantial concessions that have been made in the light of the evidence that has been given to us. We stand by the principle that it cannot be right to have two systems running side by side. It must be right to have more help for students channelled through the educational maintenance system.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the Secretary of State say that there will be a debate on this

matter. As there are two more statements to follow on broadly the same issue, I shall limit questions on this statement until 4.15 pm, and then we must move on.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Having asked my right hon. Friend to slow down the transfer from reliance on housing benefit, may I congratulate him on making this statement to the House? Will he confirm that the principle of providing support for students, principally through the student grant system, is still very much an aim of the Government? Will he confirm also, sitting as he is next to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, that as we move forward there will be meaningful discussions between the two of them so that a better timetable for achieving our objective can emerge?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. There will be discussions between my right hon. Friend and I. I think that it is right to have the longer review of the overall position which bodies such as the Advisory Committee want. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there are three significant concessions in the statement, which will appear in the regulations that will be placed before the House, which I believe will be widely welcomed by the student population and the Advisory Committee. At the same time, we have adhered to the principle of seeking to have more help coming through the educational maintenance system than through benefit, which I believe is in the public interest as well.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Why has it taken so long for the Secretary of State to make this statement? Is he aware that university vacations at St. Andrew's, Cambridge and Bangor have already started? What does he say about the Advisory Committee's comment that he has switched some of the specifically targeted benefit savings to indiscriminate flat rate subsidies? That seems to move against all the principles that he has adopted in his other social security reviews. Is he not putting the cart before the horse by pre-empting the review that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be announcing later?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that that is fair. We said in the Green Paper on social security last year, and in the White Paper, that it was our intention to move in the direction that I have outlined. That has been supported. We are taking only a first step, however. We have made significant concessions and the overall savings position has been very much affected by that. We have sought in the concessions that we are making to guard against students being affected in a sudden way. Students will enjoy a significant concession during the coming summer vacation.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement should be welcomed widely in the House and outside? Does he agree with me that it should be viewed against the most generous system of student support in the western world? Will he confirm that the concessions that he has announced will cost about £20 million? Will he further confirm that both housing benefit and supplementary benefit will be available to students for the long vacations?

Mr. Fowler: Help will be available in long vacations. As my hon. Friend suggests, it is right that that should be emphasised. It seems not to be understood, even by some


of those who have been lobbying on these matters over the past month, that the proposals are confined to short vacations and not to long ones. I must remind the House that we are spending £5 million in housing benefit that goes to halls of residence. The administration costs of paying that £5 million is £3 million a year. [Interruption.] It seems absurd that sensible people like the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) should be defending such a system.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State really expect the House to believe that he got his statement through the Treasury without detailing the number of students gaining and the number losing? Will he come clean and tell the House the number of students who will still lose under these proposals? As he is so caught up with cumulative and non-cumulative totals, I am sure that the House would be happy with a non-cumulative total.

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give that figure for the reasons that I have stated. What is certain is that 140,000 students will gain from the full £36 we are making available. There are obviously two main sources of loss—unemployment benefit in short vacations, and housing benefit on unoccupied accommodation in the long vacation. The hon. Gentleman will know, for example, that we are postponing the introduction of that until 1987. It is not possible to give the exact figure that the hon. Gentleman requires.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am glad that he has listened to the anxiety of students on covenants who are unfairly affected vis-a-vis those on sponsorship and those on full grants, and has taken steps to remedy that? However, I am still worried about those who can get accommodation only by taking an annual lease. That situation will not disappear in the summer of next year. My right hon. Friend has given himself leeway to think again, and I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Fowler: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I think that she will recognise that postponing the implementation of the proposal for a year enables the position to be examined from the point of view of the student and the landlord. Clearly we shall keep the position under review.
On the matter of the restoration of policy on the treatment of parental covenants, that decision has been widely welcomed. We shall put that beyond doubt in the regulations.

Mr. George Foulkes: In relation to the revised proposals announced by the Secretary of State today, can he tell us what the total saving to the DHSS budget will be in the first full financial year?

Mr. Fowler: In 1986–87, which is this financial year, the overall saving will be about £8·5 million. In 1987–88, it will be £16 million.

Mr. Michael Latham (Ruthland and Melton): I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the expressions of concern of many of his supporters on this matter. Will he give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention that qualified students should be denied places in higher education because they or their parents cannot afford it?

Mr. Fowler: I can readily give that assurance on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement seems to be an exercise of unwitting self-condemnation? Does he accept that in some areas there is a serious regionally intense problem? Does he accept that in areas of high unemployment, the Government's underlying assumption that students can work in the long vacation is simply not tenable because of the job starvation in those areas? Does he also accept that the problems faced by students in those area are particularly acute and seem to have escaped his attention in the statement today?

Mr. Fowler: We are not making proposals on the long vacation. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has asked a question based on an entire misunderstanding of the position.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in so far as I understand the statement, I welcome the alleviations in it? For the benefit of myself and the House, will he put in the Library a simplified and clarified version of what he has said in order to give students and their parents the benefit of clear information?

Mr. Fowler: I accept that. I shall certainly endeavour to follow up my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How much cash has the right hon. Gentleman winkled out of the Treasury for extending the students' dependants' hardship scheme?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give that figure off hand. I should be glad of the hon. Gentleman's support on this, if I interpret it as support. Clearly that is one area where money will be paid.

Mr. Dalyell: How much?

Mr. Fowler: It is not a substantial amount. What is a substantial amount is the concession that we are making on the method of calculating housing benefit where the savings are £20 million less than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: What peculiar ability is it by which the Secretary of State can estimate projected savings for the Treasury but cannot estimate the projected number of affected students?

Mr. Fowler: For the very good reason that there is a series of proposals which may affect individual students but which are not cumulative. Unless one knows the individual position of each student, it is impossible to give the kind of information that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Students (Support)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on student support.
The measures just announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services mark a return towards a system in which support for students will be provided through the single channel of the educational maintenance system. It is a limited step, taken in close consultation with my Department. I am, however, convinced from the many representations I have received that it would be very difficult to make further progress towards disentangling students from the social security system without a wider examination of the whole structure of student support.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in association with the Secretary of State for Social Services, have therefore decided to institute a comprehensive review of all aspects of financial supprt for students in Great Britain studying at first degree or equivalent level. It will examine the maintenance needs of students and the extent to which they should be provided for from public funds, having regard to other actual and potential sources of support, including loans.
The study will be carried out under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). The Scottish Education Department and the Department of Health and Social Security will be represented on it and the Education Departments of Northern Ireland and of Wales will be associated with it. The review will be carried out within Government, but we shall be open to representations and advice from every source. We shall undertake extensive consultations and consider international comparisons. The outcome of the review will itself be in the form of published proposals for public discussion and consultation.
Meanwhile, because the Government recognise the needs of students, we have mitigated the proposed removal of benefit whilst maintaining the level of compensation through the grant system originally proposed. Subject to the agreement of Parliament, the maintenance grants of students living away from home will be increased by £36 per annum from the beginning of the academic year 1986–87. This will be in addition to the increase of 2 per cent. which my predecessor announced on 16 December and will result in an overall increase of 4 per cent. on present rates for students living away from home. That is higher than the current rate of inflation. A similar addition to grant will be made in Scotland. A paper setting out detailed grant rates is being placed in the Library. The main rates of grant applicable to Scottish students are being given separately in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland today.
Student numbers in higher education are at an all-time record level. We want still more to benefit. The Government stand by the principle of access to higher education for all who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, regardless of parental income. We want to ensure that students will neither he deterred from entering higher education nor handicapped in their studies by lack of means. But in doing

so we must have regard to the claims on national resources. That is why I think that the time is ripe to investigate with an open mind all possible forms and sources of support.
I hope that the House will welcome the review which I have announced today.

Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome the Government's partial retreat from their original proposals on social security entitlement for students. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that they should be withdrawn altogether until the review is complete. Can the right hon. Gentleman, unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, tell the House how many students will lose out as a result of the revised proposals? Is he aware that his statement conveniently ignores the fact, recently admitted by the Minister with responsibility for higher education, that the real value of the student grant has fallen by one fifth in real terms since 1979? The statement holds out no prospect of a significant improvement.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his in-house review, with its restrictive terms of reference, ignores the financial needs of non-degree students and pupils who stay on in full-time education after the age of 16, although both groups are vital to the future of this country?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his attempt to present the idea of a review of student grants as a promising new beginning has a hollow ring for those of us who remember the previous so-called comprehensive review, which was set up in humiliating circumstances by his predecessor in December 1984 and unceremoniously abandoned last autumn? What guarantee is there that the latest review, for which the right hon. Gentleman has given no completion date, will not suffer a similar fate?

Mr. Baker: As to whether we should postpone the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services until the review has been completed, I remind the hon. Gentlemant that the Social Security Advisory Committee recognised that there was an element of double counting in allowing supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit for the short vacations. Those are the two principal changes being made. As my right hon. Friend said, the administrative costs of dealing with those very small claims this year was out of all proportion for the social security system.
I accept that the value of the grant has fallen by about one fifth or £90 million in real terms, but I remind the House that social security payments have risen to more than £120 million within the system. Housing benefit, which was principally introduced about four years ago, accounts for about £50 million for that. I should also point out that although grants have been cut, the number of students has risen by 80,000 under the present Government whereas under the Labour Government it fell by 2,600.
I do not know whether the Labour Front Bench intends to restore the level of student grant to what it was in 1979. In a speech last Friday the Deputy Leader of the Labour party seemed to put some kind of bridle on the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). Durham wants to spend but Sparkbrook says "Whoa". A newspaper headline on Saturday read:
'"Expansion not on' Hattersley tells dons".


On the hon. Gentleman's final question about the review and why I have announced it, I should state clearly that when I assumed responsibility for this office I looked at this question and decided that a review was clearly needed. That is why I have announced it today.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are two classes of student today—those on full grants and those whose grants are expected to be topped up by their parents, some of whom cannot afford to do so? Will he examine that aspect to ensure a more even situation for all students? Will he also seek to restore the grant lost through inflation?

Mr. Baker: The review will certainly look into that aspect. Student support now comes from two sources—from grants and from the social security system — and that is the sum of money that the review will consider. I have stated that loans are not ruled out as a means of topping up grants in recognition of the very point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the major flaws in his statement is that the review is to be conducted within Government and that it is impossible to welcome a review when the membership of the review team is to come from the same ideological straitjacket as the right hon. Gentleman?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman exclude the 16 to 18-year-olds, and why is his proposal confined to first degrees or equivalent? Will the review be sufficiently cross-departmental to include Manpower Services Commission funding which often stops people going into training or education when it could be used for that purpose?
Does the reference to loans mean that the outcome is cash limited and that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot get any more cash on the table when the review findings come out there will be a return to loans? Is he aware that loans already exist? They are known to students as overdrafts.

Mr. Baker: As I said in my statement, the review will be cross-departmental because other Departments are involved, principally the DHSS but also the Scottish and Welsh Departments. The review will be wide and thorough. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be starting on it later this summer —[Interruption.] It will have to be thorough because it is the first review of student grants for 25 years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Rubbish.

Mr. Baker: With great respect, it is the first for 25 years.
I am glad that a Liberal Member raised the subject of loans, although he should perhaps clear his channels of communication with the leader of the SDP, who made an important speech at Stirling university in February indicating a fundamental change in student support and floating the idea that student support should be operated by the universities and polytechnics themselves and that students should be given not only the student support money but part of the tuition fees to take around to address different institutions. The leader of the SDP also

said that students would be able to take out loans for topping up, so there seems to be some support in part of the alliance for the concept of loans.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I welcome the announcement of a thorough and comprehensive review, but may I impress upon my right hon. Friend that the voices of industry, business and schools must be heard as well as those of higher education and Government? Will the review include the problems of parental contributions and the wider problems of financing research and academic salaries?

Mr. Baker: Financing research and academic salaries are rather separate matters, but I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his remarks. The review should certainly cover the attitudes of schools and the other aspects that he mentioned. I am concerned about the disincentive for 18 and 19-year-olds to go into higher education. This has been well measured over the years and probably owes more to the social attitudes and quality of education in schools than to cash considerations.

Mr. Max Madden: Does not the Secretary of State owe it to students to give a clear statement of the date given to the review team to complete its work? Will he undertake that all evidence submitted will be published? In view of the dramatic reduction in the real value of grants since 1979, does he not also owe it to students to state that new money will be available for a substantial increase in student grants when the review is completed?

Mr. Baker: The review will examine the whole question of student support. which might be a mixed system of grants and loans or grants and sponsorship. All these ideas are opening up. For example, Mr. Ball, who is warden of Keble college and chairman of the board of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, which includes the polytechnics, made a proposal last week recommending grants for two years and loans and sponsorship for the third year. Ideas of that kind will have to be examined.
The evidence will be public. I am sure that the various bodies will make it public themselves. If they do not do so, we shall make it public unless they ask for it to be held confidential, as some of it might be in matters of this kind.

Mr. Roger Sims: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on recognising the significance of these problems and instituting a review so soon after taking office. Will the review take into account the disparities which now exist among authorities in relation to discretionary and mandatory grants as this leads to some apparent injustices?

Mr. Baker: I can confirm my hon. Friend's last point.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State realise that the total increase in the student grant that he has announced today, inadequate as it is, is twice the increase in the old-age pension? Would it be right for Britain's 9 million pensioners to conclude that that is where they come in the Government's pecking order?

Mr. Baker: That question would be best directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I believe that I have secured a pretty good deal for students this year in that the basic grant is going up by 4 per cent., which is more than the rate of inflation.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Despite some of the carping comments from Opposition Members, will my right hon. Friend accept that the review will be thoroughly welcomed not only in the House but by those in higher education? His reference to student loans will be widely welcomed. We hope that it will receive favourable consideration by the review body. May I ask for further advice? In regard to the 4 per cent. increase that he mentioned, does that mean effectively that at least for this year the grant has been inflation-proofed?

Mr. Baker: The grant for those students who are not living at home has been inflation-proofed. I think this will be welcomed by many students. As to loans, that is a matter which is very much a matter for public debate. Various schemes have been put forward in the student world itself and in the academic world. They relate not just to student support but to the whole financing of higher education. There is now a greater fluidity and mobility in the thinking on that subject than for many years.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in all his answers about the thoroughly comprehensive review he has —inadvertently, I assume—forgotten to tell us the completion date? Am I right in assuming that the review will not be finished before, say, August 1988, or is it that two years for him is only a short time in politics?

Mr. Baker: I think that it will be completed before that. I should think that it is likely to be completed in the course of the next year. Then it will be a public consultation document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Surely that is what the House and the country would expect. Surely I am not expected to hold a review under a Government Minister and to slap the result on the table and say "That is that." We want to hear wide views and comments from the many people who are affected.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome among many anxious students and their families for the decision to re-establish the review and in particular for his willingness to contemplate a properly structured loans element? Can he see any way other than through loans whereby students can be disentangled from the clutches of the social security system and whereby all who are academically qualified may have an equal opportunity to enjoy higher education other than in conditions of penury?

Mr. Baker: The main thrust of what my right hon. Friend and I have said today is to disentangle students from the social security system. I think that enjoys wide support across the House. In the Beveridge report, which I studied last week, he specifically recommended that students should not be eligible for unemployment benefit. We are not making that change at the moment. Under what my right hon. Friend has said today, students will still be eligible for supplementary and unemployment benefit during the long vacation. One cannot withdraw those benefits without having a review to replace them with other forms of support. I do not exclude schemes of sponsorship by industry or a form of loan, possibly on a subsidised basis.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In attempting to recast the grant structure for students, will the Secretary of State take into account a possible serious knock-on effect if loans were to be institutionalised? Does he realise

that Scottish universities offer courses on a four-year basis and that that could be a substantial disincentive to students coming to Scottish universities?

Mr. Baker: I understand that. That is why a Scottish Minister will be closely involved with the review.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Clearly the Government cannot have a bottomless pit of expenditure on student grants. Is it not right that the Government are spending £2,800 million on student grants? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review body should examine the question of interest-free loans? Does he agree that students cannot always survive on the grants that the Government give? With the problem of unemployment they may not be able to find work to augment their grants. Therefore, interest-free loans would be an important step forward.

Mr. Baker: Certainly the review body will examine that. It is fair to remind the House that, compared with other western developed countries we have a uniquely high level of student support — three to five times higher per student compared with Holland and Germany, and significantly higher than in Denmark, France and Italy. The difficulty in Britain is that the two systems— the social security system and the educational maintenance system—have become tangled. It is in the interests of everybody to sort that out.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: in view of his statement and his earlier answer, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Scottish Education Department will be represented fully by a sponsoring Minister, that is, his hon. Friend the Minister at the Scottish Office who is responsible for education, in what the Secretary of State has described as the most thorough review in 25 years? Will the Scottish representatives on the review body take the opportunity to bring again to the attention of his Department additional living allowances for students at universities in cities London which have exceptionally high living costs? In the Scottish contest I think particularly of Aberdeen for obvious reasons. Will the review consider the potential for extending the principle of additional living allowances beyond London to other cities in Britain?

Mr. Baker: Clearly the review body will examine such points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a Scottish Minister will be involved. There are often many things that we can learn from the Scottish educational system.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having pressed for this fundamental review on student finance, I should like to join many of my hon. Friends who welcome it. That welcome will also be reflected in Norwich where the fundamental review is very much required by those involved in the university of East Anglia and elsewhere. Does my right Friend agree that higher education is so vitally important that we must attract finance into it in all possible ways? Does he agree that in the fundamental review we must try to find alternative ways of getting finance into higher education for the benefit of young people so that the endless wrangling with the DHSS over finance may cease?

Mr. Baker: I hope that one of the prizes that will come out of the review will be a fundamental examination of the inter-relationship of student support with the financing of universities, polytechnics and institutes of higher education. One of my ambitions is to increase the


participation of 18 and 19-year-olds in higher education. We have done very well since 1979 with a further 80,000 full-time students. I want to see progress above that figure.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having two children on four-year courses at Edinburgh university, may I ask the Minister what is the objection to either he or the Under-Secretary reading out the written answer so that the Scots may question him on it?

Mr. Baker: That is not a matter for me. I have tried to answer as well as I can. As regards universities, of course I have responsibility for those in Scotland.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement about the review will be very welcome on this side of the House, and that many of us wish it more luck than the last one? Does he agree that it is extraordinary that the main form of finance for students comes as non-returnable grants from the state? Is it not time tha we exploited other areas of society and in particular future employers? Should we not encourage them to take more interest in and to give more financial support to students whom they will be recruiting later?

Mr. Baker: I have sympathy with that approach. Many companies—larger and medium-sized ones for the most part — have sponsorship schemes and sponsor students in one way or another both at first degree and at postgraduate level. That is one area where I hope that the review body will be able to see an expansion of involvement of other sources of finance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on maintaining the tradition of his predecessors—every time the heat is on student grants, they set up an inquiry? He will recall that, when the Prime Minister was in opposition in 1978, she promised students a fundamental inquiry. The right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) set the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on to a grants review in 1982. When it failed to come up with proposals for loans, it was quietly abandoned. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when under pressure 18 months ago, set up a review of student grants which was quietly abandoned when the pressure was off.
What guarantee is there that this review will be carried through? What will the timescale be? We were assured on all of the previous occasions that I have described that the fundamental work and the collection of information had been done. May we have a rather shorter timescale? Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the review mature students and access courses for mature students? If the Secretary of State for Social Services does not know how many winners and losers there are in the propsoals, does the right hon. Gentleman, because last time around, even the Prime Minister could answer a question about that?

Mr. Baker: The review body will have to consider the implications of its findings for mature students. I have already been frank with the House about the time. I think that the body will report next year. As for the certainty of the review, I have announced it at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and it will happen.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are still in the middle of questions on the statement. We have a ten-minute Bill, another statement and an important debate ahead of us. Some of the hon. Members who are rising in their places wish to take part in that debate. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for another five minutes, during which I hope that most hon. Members who are rising in their places will be called.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order at the end of the statement.

Mr. Dalyell: My point of order arises out of the statement.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it at the end of questions on the statement.

Mr. Michael Stern: I join those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have congratulated my right hon. Friend, especially on that part of his statement which puts student loans back on the agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to bring ourselves into line with what is regarded in the rest of the world as an acceptable level of student support, the grant element must inevitably fall?

Mr. Baker: The review body will have to examine that. It is quite true that there is a variety of means of support for students in other countries. In America, for example, support involves a higher element of loans, many of which are cancelled by the employer when the graduate is employed. The review body must examine that type of arrangement. I assure my hon. Friend that the review body will deal with the issues that he has raised.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review will be especially welcome to those of us who have urged his Department to examine student grants? Does he further agree that that review must be conducted on the understanding that it is no answer to say that our system of student maintenance is better than that in any other country? The system is deteriorating, and something positive must come out of the review.

Mr. Baker: I think that I am right in saying that, since the student grant was established in its current form in the 1960s, it has steadily declined in real terms. There is pressure on whatever Government are in power, therefore. We need a complete overhaul of the system and I hope that that is what the review will lead to.

Mr. Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend's announcement is excellent news for students, hut does he agree that much damage has been done by the uncertainty of the past few months? Will he therefore give a deadline by which the review should be completed? Does he agree that to let it drag on, perhaps well into next year, would be damaging to students who are anxious about their future? Will he say that the review will be completed by Easter?

Mr. Baker: I am reluctant for obvious reasons to give a specific date for completion. The review must be thorough and take account of comparisons of many other countries. I expect the review to report during next year. I understand the urgency.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, which is


useful for all students, does he agree that British universities are the best in the world? Is it not therefore a privilege rather than a right for our students to go to university? Does my right hon. Friend agree that once students get to university they must aim to get qualified? If there was the incentive of a part grant, part loan system, would they not do even better?

Mr. Baker: I think that some would. Our best universities are certainly the best in the world, but my statement also refers to polytechnics, some of which are absolutely outstanding. I visited one in north Staffordshire last week, the computer department of which comes third after Imperial college and the computer department at Cambridge university. It is a great triumph for a polytechnic to get to that standard.

Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this comprehensive review will be widely welcomed by students, centres of learning and industry'? Is he further aware that loans will be welcomed? Does he agree that there is a real fear among students at a time of high unemployment about what will happen to the servicing of loans if the students are unemployed? Does he agree that such a loan should be on a soft basis—that debt service should be geared to future employment and salary levels?

Mr. Baker: Terms of loans and the extent of softness or the subsidy required will obviously concern the review. I understand what my hon. Friend says.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the softness or interest-freeness of the loan is not nearly as important as the fact that repayment should not start until salary levels reach a certain point, as that would avoid the reverse dowry on girls?

Mr. Baker: I accept the problem that my hon. Friend has described. One of the reasons why the review must consider practice in other countries is that they have considerable experience of operating such systems. It is not as if we are breaking new ground. There is plenty of experience to learn from on the continent and in America. That is why the review body must take full international comparisons into account.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: In regard to inflation proofing, would I be unduly rash to assume that, between now and when the report is ready for implementation, student grants will increase broadly in line with the rate of inflation?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is asking me to anticipate the discussions that I shall have later this year with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I think that I have shown good evidence of the token of the Government's concern today in that the level of grants for students who live away from home will be 4 per cent. higher this year, which is higher than the current rate of inflation.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be within your knowledge that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland returned from his official visit to Mexico solely to be here for the statement on student grants, and for no other possible reason. As the Secretary of State referred in his statement to written answer, and as Scottish universities are affected rather differently, would it not have been at least sensible to have allowed the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement so that he could be cross-questioned on it?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not within my knowledge. We had better have the next statement.

Supplementary Benefits (Board and Lodging)

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on supplementary benefit arrangements for board and lodging.
As the House knows, when the main lines of the present system were set in April 1985 the Government undertook to monitor its working carefully and to review the financial limits on maximum payments after a year. Following the subsequent decision to have a general social security uprating in July 1986, it was thought sensible to defer any changes until then, but meanwhile, in advance, to make significant increases in the limits for residential care and nursing homes alongside the previous uprating in November 1985.
I am arranging to place in the Library copies of reports on the extensive monitoring and statistical surveys undertaken by the Department since April 1985, together with the full report commissioned from the consultants Ernst and Whinney on residential care and nursing homes. I have placed in the Vote Office copies of Ernst and Whinney's summary of its report, and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's comments on last November's amending regulations. In reaching our conclusions we have, of course, also taken account of the representations that we have received from Members and from other individuals and organisations.
For ordinary board and lodging, our most recent figures show that expenditure in 1984 rose not to £380 million, as we earlier estimated, but to over £500 million—an increase of no less than 80 per cent. in a year. At the same time, the number of boarders increased from 112,000 to over 160,000. Our monitoring and surveys confirm the existence of an accommodation market unduly influenced by the amount of benefit payable, rather than by normal commercial factors, and of an unacceptable degree of abuse. Many landlords have reduced their charges in response to the restraint imposed, and across the country our studies show average charges are for the most part close to average limits.
In view of this, and of the continued need to ensure firm control in this area, the Government have concluded that no general increase in the financial limits for ordinary board and lodging, or in the associated meals allowances, is at present justified. This is also the case for hostels, where our monitoring showed that average charges in all regions including London were below the present limit. We have, however, looked again at the current limit for couples without young children which is one and three quarter times the single adult limit. This has been widely represented to us as unrealistic, and we have decided to increase it to twice the single limit, as for couples with young children.
It will not surprise the House that many of the representations about ordinary boarders have focused not on the financial limits but on the limited time for which many of those under 26 can be paid as boarders at all. The regulations which came into effect on 24 November 1985 provided for those paid as boarders at the time to be exempt from time limits until 28 July 1986. We propose to

extend that exemption indefinitely. New boarders under 26 will, however, continue to be subject to time limits, which we do not propose to change, unless they come within the extensive range of exemption categories covering those for whom longer-term boarding is a genuine need.
I turn now to the limits for residential care and nursing homes. Following the November 1985 increases of £10 a week in the residential care limits and £31·40 in the nursing home limits, the evidence is that in general homes charging at or below the average will fall within the benefit limits— in several categories, well within. While there is therefore no clear case for an all-round increase in July in addition to last November's, we nevertheless think it right to make some further increase where the evidence suggests it is most needed, in the limit for residential care homes for the elderly. We now propose that this should go up by £5 to £125 a week, making an increase of £15 a week overall since April 1985. In addition, we intend to make five important changes to meet specific problems which we judge to be of greater significance than the limits for particular categories of home. First, for those elderly people in residential care homes who are very dependent who are at present limited to £120 a week, we propose an increased limit of £140 a week where they qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance.
Secondly, for blind people over pension age, where the same limitation currently applies, we similarly propose to increase the limit from £120 to £140 a week.
Thirdly, for those in residential care or nursing homes in Greater London, we propose to increase the limits by a special extension of up to £17·50 a week.
Fourthly, for those whose benefit is being paid at a transitionally protected rate in July, we propose an addition of up to £10 above their protected rate. This is a departure from the normal conventions concerning transitional protection, but one which will I think be welcomed in all parts of the House.
Fifthly, for those who are away from a home for short periods—for example, for a break or to maintain contact with their families—we propose new provisions to meet retaining fees.
Taken together, the changes I have outlined mean that, for example, the limit for a severely disabled elderly person in a residential care home in Greater London will rise by £37·50 a week. To assist the House, I am arranging for details of the new pattern of limits to he inserted in the Official Report.
These proposals are an important step towards the more flexible approach, but within a firmly-controlled framework, which is also the aim of the longer-term studies that we are conducting with the local authority associations, in consultation with the private and voluntary sectors. Subject to the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee, we intend to embody them in regulations to take effect from 28 July.

Residential Care and Nursing Home Limits from 28 July 1986


Residential Care Category
July Limit£
London Limit£
Present Limit£


Elderly
125
142·50
120


Very dependant or Blind Elderly
140
157·50
120


Mentally ill
130
147·50
130

Residential Care Category
July Limit£
London Limit£
Present Limit£


Drug or Alcohol dependant
130
147·50
130


Mentally Handicapped
150
167·50
150


Physically Disabled





Disabled under pension age
180
197·50
180


Disabled over pension age
125
142·50
120


Very dependant elderly
140
157·50
120


Others
125
142·50
120


Nursing Home Category





Mentally ill
180
197·50
180


Drug or Alcohol dependant
180
197·50
180


Mentally Handicapped
200
217·50
200


Terminal ill
230
247·50
230


Physically Disabled





Disabled under pension age
230
247·50
230


Disabled over pension age
170
187·50
170


Others (including elderly)
170
187·50
170

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The first point that I should make on behalf of the whole House is to complain about the timing of this statement in relation to the publication of the information on which it is claimed to he based. Most hon. Members will not have seen the monitoring results on which this statement is said to be based, but I have them with me. Clearly it has been impossible for any hon. Member to assess the information contained in them in the time available before the statement was made.
Last July, following parliamentary questions about the results of monitoring, I wrote to the Minister. I wrote again on 15 October, not having had a reply. I finally received a reply in December from the Under-Secretary, which indicated that the information would be published
as soon as we are in a position to do, although this may not now he until after Christmas.
Obviously, in DHSS language,
may not now he until after Christmas
means 18 June.
From the brief glance that I have had at the information, it is clear that the monitoring in respect of care was carried out early in 1985. It also appears that in respect of another report the information was ready in February this year. Why, therefore, was this information in its cold form not made available to the House in time for hon. Members to consider it before this statement was made?
The Minister said that many landlords have reduced their charges. I draw his attention to a report, which I am sure he has seen, entitled "It's the Limit", which indicates that landlords in London have recently put up their prices by 20 per cent. since the limits were set. It suggests that in 1984–85 the average price for a single room was £85·34 a week, compared with the DHSS allowance of £48·30. The report shows that in London only 60 hotels had charges below the limit set, and that of those only 22 had any vacancies. On average, people were sharing four to a

room, although in some cases it was as many as 12 to a room. We are talking about 10,000 people who are subject to these limits in London.
In recent weeks, surveys have arrived in the House from various other parts of the country. They have usually been local studies. I refer the Minister to one that we have received from Preston, which indicates that none of the bed-and-breakfast establishments or hotels that could be contacted were within the maximum allowance, and that only one had ever taken unemployed people. In any case, only one had vacancies, and again everyone was expected to share rooms with strangers.
I also refer the Minister to similar reports from Ipswich, which indicate that many claimants are not able to live below the limits that now exist. There is a reference to bed and breakfast costing £73 a week, and no establishment there is within the cash limits for bed and breakfast. Therefore, it is hard for us to believe that the Minister's summary is justified, and I am not sure about the liming of the study that was made.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that there would he no general increase in the meals allowances. I think I am correct in saying that these meals allowances have not gone up for two years, during which VAT has been imposed on takeaway meals and the average increase in the cost of food has been 12 per cent. That must mean that these meals allowances, which are inadequate now, will become seriously inadequate in the coming year.
We are glad that the Minister is now giving the proper rate for couples, as that has always been what landlords have charged, as opposed to what the DHSS has given. We are also pleased that the threat of the time limits has been removed for existing boarders. Nevertheless, I remind the House that all the difficulties that have been experienced will still apply with equal force to new boarders.
The Minister referred to the extensive exemption categories. As there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that those categories are not working properly, will new claimants still have to apply to he made exempt—as opposed to that being considered as a point of principle —and what will happen to appeals?
The hon. Gentleman said that the costs for residential care homes were considered to be adequate. The evidence was collected in 1985 and compares costs at the beginning of 1985 with limits at the end. I refer the Minister to a series of reports from voluntary organisations, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, all of which show that existing limits are inadequate. All their complaints will not be met by this statement.
I note that no increase is allowed for the special category of senile dementia, although 22 per cent. of people over 80 fall into that category. If the Minister claims that the new limits are adequate, why is an increase being proposed for transitional protection? Presumably transitional protection is above existing limits and, indeed, new limits, so if the new limits are adequate, why is that proposal needed?
Finally—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am distressing hon. Members, but this is an important subject and I have drawn their attention to the amount of information on which the statement is based. Will the Minister tell us how the physically and mentally handicapped will be affected by the statement? Their transitional protection was due to come to an end in April 1986 and they are presumably facing the effects of these proposals.
The information about these regulations was made available to the House only at the last possible minute and in a form that makes them extremely difficult to assess. It is outrageous for the House to be treated in this way when it is clear that much of the information has been available for months.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I can deal with the hon. Lady's questions in the order in which she asked them. We have made available more extensive monitoring and survey information than, I suspect, any Government have hitherto made available in connection with a matter of this sort. I shall not make any apologies for the fact that it has taken us some time to put the information together and ensure that it was available to the House at the right time.
The Central London Social Security Advisers Forum is a complex matter and it is difficult to comment on everything that the hon. Lady mentioned, but we think that the survey overstated the case. The survey appears to be based on the proposition that supplementary benefit should enable people to compete with tourists for hotels in central London—a proposition which we do not accept. We are not sure whether its data are complete. As the forum knows, DHSS officials merely responded to some advertisements in newspapers over a particular period and found 20 places advertising within the DHSS limits which were not included in the CLSSAF list, so we are sceptical about that.
The hon. Lady is right in saying that the meals allowance has not been increased for some time. On the other hand, one of the surveys by the social security policy inspectorate shows that a majority of claimants think that the meals allowance is adequate. Indeed, it is only a fraction less than the householder rate of supplementary benefit and is significantly higher than the non-householder rate of supplementary benefit. Therefore, we see no good reason for increasing it at present.
The hon. Lady suggested that not everyone would be fully satisfied with the residential care homes limits, and I am sure that that is the case, but she referred to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and she will have registered the fact that one of the significant concessions in my speech was specifically directed at the elderly blind. Indeed, the general concession that I have announced for those in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance is expected, and certainly intended, to cover the group suffering from senile dementia, to which she understandably referred.
I simply do not understand the hon. Lady's point about transitional protection. Its purpose was to cover those in homes who were paying levels which, by definition, were above those that we thought it appropriate to meet through supplementary benefit. We protected them at that time and have concluded that it is right to improve that protection to ensure that their position is fully safeguarded. That is entirely sensible. Indeed, the whole package is far more sensible than the hon. Lady's rather grudging comments gave it credit for.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of us do not take the carping view of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that we were perfectly happy to listen to what he had to say, and that we shall study the basic information at our leisure, because there will be other

opportunities to debate the subject? I wish to thank him for two particular matters. First, I thank him for responding so generously to the genuine problems of voluntary homes which look after the frail elderly, especially in Greater London. The Minister has made immense progress there and listened carefully to the many homes that put views to him.
Secondly, I welcome what he said about the transitional provisions, which 98·5 per cent. of the House understood, leaving 1·5 per cent. on the Opposition Benches who did not, and for what he said about people in accommodation not having to move as a result of the eight week short-term period. My hon. Friend has listened carefully to the points put to him, certainly by Conservative Members, and he deserves warm praise for what he has done.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may return the compliment by saying that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the trouble that he took to ensure that I was put fully in the picture about some of the problems that were troubling him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again I must say that there is to be a debate on this matter. Following this we have a ten-minute Bill, which, I understand will be opposed, so that will delay the subsequent debate even further. I shall allow questions to continue until 5.15 pm and then we must move on. I ask hon. Members to make their questions brief.

Mr. Frank Field: First, is it wise of the Government not to make any changes in the time limits and the exemption categories, considering that a constituent of mine. Simon Cotton, managed to take the Government to the High Court and the Court of Appeal and win? Is there not a case for extending those exemption categories? Secondly, as the fees increase for old people in nursing homes who are eligible for attendance allowance, should not the attendance allowance be unfrozen?

Mr. Newton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I am not sure that I understand the connection that he makes with Simon Cotton, because the issue of exemption categories was separate from the Cotton case, and we adjusted the regulations in November —[Interruption.] I understand that Mr. Cotton was not exempt, but the case concerned the technical legitimacy of some parts of the regulations, and that has been corrected. At the same time, we took the opportunity to extend the exemption provisions to give the Secretary of State a discretionary power over exemption in cases of exceptional hardship.
I must make it clear that we do not propose to reintroduce the disregard of the attendance allowance, which undoubtedly led to excessive payments in many cases under the previous regime, as was generally accepted. In respect of residential care homes, we propose to introduce an additional limit for those in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance as a proxy measure of their likely need for care over and above that which would normally be provided in the home.

Mr. Robin Squire: Clearly both the statement and the accompanying evidence will repay study. However, will my hon. Friend say whether the summary of that evidence is that at present there is sufficient accommodation available in London, particularly for single people, at the present rate?

Mr. Newton: Our general view is that the evidence suggests that there is sufficient accommodation to meet legitimate needs for board and lodging, that the average price comes within our limits and that it is not appropriate to increase the limits for London, which my hon. Friend may have had in mind. I would not necessarily tie those comments to central London. This matter includes an issue on which we have already touched, which is whether the supplementary benefit system should be expected to enable people in London, or coming to London, to compete with tourists for hotel accommodation in central London.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister explain to the House the impact of these proposals, and any others that he has in mind, on women in voluntary refuges run by Women's Aid? Will he particularly consider the supplementary benefit position of women, not only during their period in refuge, but at the point of transition when they leave the refuge and start looking for alternative accommodation?

Mr. Newton: The point about alternative accommodation is rather wide and goes into other aspects of the benefit system. Refuges would normally count as hostels, in which case the time limits would not apply. The limit would be unchanged under the proposals. As I have said, our evidence clearly suggests that the average charges for hostels are generally within the limits that we already have.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I warmly welcome the various changes announced by my hon. Friend in respect of residential homes. He and I have spoken about such homes in the past. I recognise that central London is an expensive area in which to run such establishments. Does my hon. Friend concede that costs are also fairly high in areas close to London? Would it not have been better to introduce a tapering measure so that my constituency, which is the first one just over the border of Greater London, would not be adversely affected?

Mr. Newton: I might have predicted the points raised by my hon. Friend because, as he knows, I pass through his constituency—I do so only because the roads are now so much better—on the way to my constituency, several times each week. I think that my hon. Friend understands the problem. Generally, costs are higher in London than in other parts of the country. There is no such clear pattern elsewhere. Wherever we draw a line, there will be difficulties. I regret that my hon. Friend's constituency is just outside London, but the step that we have taken is the appropriate one for the moment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the Minister assure us that, once the board and lodging regulations for new applicants bite on 28 July, he will carefully review the position over coming months? Some alliance Members fear that there will be great deal of confusion and hardship as a result of those regulations. I welcome the increases effected by the changes. Do they take proper account of the extra impositions placed on residential homes by the Residential Homes Act and the Residential Care Homes Regulations?

Mr. Newton: There is no change in the time limits. New claimants have been subject to a time limit since November. From 28 July, existing claimants as at 24 November will continue not be subject to a time limit. As

I understand it, the arrangements are working satisfactorily. About a quarter of the younger claimants fall within the exemption categories.
At the time we made what I might call the interim increase—which was a substantial increase—last November, we had in mind the fact that increases in the charges for registration, and so on, were coming along. The £15 a week increase in the basic residential care limit, taking November and July together, takes sufficient account of the costs imposed by the registration system.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the changes that he has proposed are welcome, because they are well chosen and are well directed at specific deserving categories, notably the residential elderly in London? Does my hon. Friend agree that in the longer term there will be a problem that must be addressed? We must get more regional and category differentiation into some of the measures, because there is a danger that what is adequate in some parts of the country will be inadequate in central London, and vice versa.

Mr. Newton: Ideally, we should have more differentiation according to individual homes, instead of on a regional basis. That is why we attach so much importance to the working party with local authority organisations, and to the pilot studies using local authority social service assessment procedures. We hope to start these studies later this year.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for his sensitive attention to this complicated area. I thank him also for what he has done for the severely physically disabled in residential care homes. I also draw attention to the staggering sum spent on ordinary board and lodging payments. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all that money is reaching the landlords for whom it is intended? If not, will he introduce a voucher system?

Mr. Newton: I am not satisfied that all the money reached the people for whom it was intended. We are aware that there was a degree of abuse, both among claimants and landlords. We have sought to tackle that. The result of the measures that we have taken, together with those that I have announced today, will be to reduce still further the amount of abuse, to concentrate what money is spent on those who have a genuine need for it, and to tighten up the system generally. It is clear from what my hon. Friend said that he will support our efforts.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent statement and his willingness to publish all the information available, including the Ernst and Whinney report. Does he agree that, on the basis of a rough, back-of-the-envelope computation, the increase that he has announced for residential care means an increase, since April 1985, of about 13·5 per cent. for most people in private residential care, and up to 27 per cent. for the more disabled, the blind and the handicapped? Is that not how we would expect a Conservative Government to behave—to target their money on those most in need?

Mr. Newton: I can only express my gratitude to my hon. Friend, without necessarily confirming her second figure. The first figure of 13·5 per cent. is about right. The


increases for particular needy and vulnerable groups are substantial. I shall check my hon. Friend's mathematics later.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities, such as Leicester county council, have used the Residential Homes Act to discriminate against the private sector? Will he ensure that when the order is drafted, it is done in such a way that local authorities cannot meddle in the benefit system?

Mr. Newton: The matter would be subject to a separate order. I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend said about the tendency of some local authorities to seek to demand from homes in the private and voluntary sector standards higher than they have in their own local authority homes. We are anxious that the registration and inspection procedures should be worked in a sensible and flexible way. Within the past few months we have strengthened our advice to local authorities in that respect.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the good news that there is to be an increase in allowances for residential care homes. Noting my concern that it is a growth industry, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the payments will be properly policed? Has my hon. Friend considered making recommendations about a minimum fee and a maximum fee for those poor, unfortunate people who receive love and attention in residential care homes?

Mr. Newton: The regulations set maxima. Obviously, they do not set minima. We have enough difficulty deciding what the maxima should be, without seeking to venture down the other path. The object of policing is to get a benefits system which directs help to those who need it, and not to those who do not. Some aspects of ordinary board and lodging must be seen in the light of our announcement a few weeks ago about the injection of additional staff into the system to combat fraud generally and, not least, fraud in the board and lodging area.

Child Benefit (Upratings)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in any calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order which will make an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage; and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund.
It is 40 years since Parliament adopted, with all-party support, the introduction of the family allowance. That was a weekly child credit which is now incorporated in the child benefits that are the subject of my proposed Bill. The weekly tax-free allowance, payable directly to the mother, has become the central feature of our system of family income support, and it has been relied on by millions of mothers to help with the feeding, clothing and care of what must now be the majority of British citizens. It is the most economical allowance in terms of administration, because it is a universal benefit. There is no case-work. It has nearly 100 per cent. take-up. It is highly popular. One reason for that is that mothers can rely on it every week in making their plans for the household budget.
In the course of the 1970s, it was decided by Parliament to amalgamate family allowances with the child tax allowances, which were included by William Pitt in our income tax system at the very beginning— before the end of the 18th century. The purpose of the child tax allowances was to leave families with children relatively better off than those without children to support. That is a social objective which I do not think would be seriously challenged by anyone.
I have sought the leave of the House to introduce the Bill because I am concerned at two recent developments in official policy regarding families with children. One is the proposal to replace the family income supplement, which is also normally drawn by the mother, with a new family credit to be added to the pay packet of the breadwinner. The Secretary of State agreed at Report stage on the Social Security Bill to reconsider that suggestion, which has been widely condemned, but we have not yet seen his alternative proposals. My view is that we must maintain the practice of paying the money to support the children direct to the caring parent.
The other evidence of official policy towards the support of the family which is causing concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House is the lack of commitment to maintaining the real value of child benefit. The object of my Bill is to ensure that the real value of child benefit is not diminished by inflation with the passage of time. It is, in fact, a Bill almost identical to the one that I introduced with the support of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and one of my hon. Friends—now a member of the Government—in 1980. That Bill was not opposed by a single hon. Member, but the DHSS and the Treasury have not taken due notice of that fact.
If child benefit fails to hold its real value, the practical effect is to raise the share of the total tax burden which is borne by the section of the community—between a quarter and a third of all income tax payers—who have responsibility for the care of children. In so far as child


benefit is the successor to family allowances, if its real value is reduced, there is a fall in the amount of help that we give to support poor families without obliging them to submit to a test of means.
Last year's uprating of child benefit effectively took 35p a week off its real value. The increase proposed for the coming year would not significantly restore that cut. The effect is to add to the difficulties of families seeking to keep out of the growing number of people dependent on means-tested benefits. That number has now risen to the terrible, unacceptable total of 14 million.
For those in work, an increase in child benefit has the effect of a cut in income tax, aimed selectively at families with children. For those who are not in work, a rise in child benefit assists poor families without diminishing in any way their incentive to take work and to save to improve their position.
In 1975, in the Committee on the Child Benefit Bill, an amendment proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Paymaster General and Minister for Employment on behalf of the Conservative party and supported by, among others, my hon. Friend the present Economic Secretary to the Treasury and myself would have linked child benefit to the retail price index. Unhappily, under Treasury pressure, it was defeated by one vote.
In the debates on the Finance Bill in 1977, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and other prominent people made clear their commitment to the indexation of the tax allowances on the basis of the principle of the Lawson-Rooker-Wise amendment; but the child tax allowances were not covered by the new rules because they were already being phased out. If child benefit had been raised since 1979 in line with the personal and married persons tax allowances, it would now be £8, not £7, a week. What has happened in practice is that a sum of more than £600 million a year in potential spending power has been lost by families with children and has been distributed to taxpayers at large, the majority of whom do not have children to support.
My Bill is intended to ensure that this process does not continue. It proposes, in effect, that child benefit in future should be treated at least as favourably as the major tax allowances under the Lawson-Rooker-Wise formula, which is accepted on both sides of the House.
My Bill includes the proposal that the necessary funds should be drawn from the national insurance fund. This is not just a trick to get around the rules of order. I think that it is important to revitalise the national insurance fund and to resurrect the contributory principle. Since the contributions to the national insurance fund were put on an income-related basis in the 1970s, many people have come to regard their contributions merely as a form of income tax. I prefer to think that the acceptance of the liability to contribute to society by paying income tax should be seen as the qualification of the citizen for the benefits of a system of income support at the times of dependency, which of course are the reasons why we pay child benefit, unemployment benefit and old-age pensions. The national insurance principle should not be lost hut, instead, should be relied on to produce the necessary buoyant source of funds for the provision of a basic income guarantee.
The gross cost per week of maintaining a child in community placements with foster parents range between £37 and £50 a week. The cost in local authority residential

care ranges between £270 and £420 a week. Those figures surely prove that it is good sense to give every encouragement we can to parents to look after their children in their family home. I trust that the House will approve my motion.

Mr. Frank Field: I rise to oppose this measure being passed without a vote. I do so because, as the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has already reminded us, in 1980 the House passed a similar measure without any objection, yet the passing of that measure did not have the effect that we had hoped for on the collective judgment of the Government. Since 1980, we have had an early-day motion which has shown how strong is the support from both sides of the House for this measure. Indeed, those voluntary organisations interested in promoting child benefit have been busy at work and gained private assurances from numerous hon. Members.
Although I fully realise that votes in the House are only one way of bringing our collective view to weigh on the Government, I believe that it is a very important one. I think that I know my colleagues well enough to believe that the assurances they have given in private will be reflected, when they have a chance in the Division Lobbies, in public. Therefore, when the appropriate time comes, I shall divide the House. Needless to say, I hope that the Bill is passed with a substantial majority.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 3.

Division No. 227]
[5.26 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Harry


Alexander, Richard
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Ashdown, Paddy
Craigen, J. M.


Aspinwall, Jack
Critchley, Julian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crouch, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Deakins, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Benyon, William
Dormand, Jack


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eastham, Ken


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Forman, Nigel


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Cartwright, John
Greenway, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gregory, Conal


Clarke, Thomas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Clay, Robert
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clelland, David Gordon
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harvey, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy






Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Ms Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George


Hume, John
Rogers, Allan


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kennedy, Charles
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Knox, David
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stott, Roger


McTaggart, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marlow, Antony
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Meadowcroft, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, R.


Michie, William
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walters, Dennis


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilson, Gordon


Pike, Peter
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winterton, Nicholas


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Price, Sir David



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and Mr. Robin Squire.


Raynsford, Nick



Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)





NOES


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Mr. Frank Field and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Nigel Forman, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir David Price, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATINGS)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the event of an increase in the Retail Price Index in any calendar year, to lay before Parliament the draft of an uprating order which will make an increase in child benefit with effect from the beginning of the following financial year of not less than a corresponding percentage; and to make future increases in child benefit a charge on the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

Foreign Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yesterday, the House spent the entire day discussing South Africa. Today, the opportunity to consider, if the House wishes, the rest of the world has been truncated as a result of the proceedings so far. The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to extend my sights that far. If points arise during the debate, especially if any hon. Member wishes to say anything further about South Africa, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will deal with them when he replies to the debate. I shall concentrate mostly on East-West relations, the NATO Alliance and arms control. I shall also say a word about the European Community in the light of next week's European Council and the United Kingdom presidency of the Community, which starts on 1 July.
The previous full-day debate on foreign affairs was as long ago as November. One point on which there has been some development since then is terrorism. I shall not rehearse all the arguments provoked by the Libyan affair some weeks ago, but I underline the growing emphasis, which will be welcomed on both sides of the House, on the simple proposition that terrorism must not be seen to be a cost-free option for fanatics. It is of the utmost importance that the world, and especially the Western world, should continue to strenthen its practical defences against terrorism. We can take some encouragement from the significant progress made in that direction.
At the Tokyo summit and in the European Community, the Western approach has been increasingly concerted. The United Kingdom has played a key role in that search for consolidation and the important follow-up work is being undertaken with diligence and enthusiasm.
It is right, as hon. Members will remind me, that we should address ourselves also to the causes of terrorism. One of the most outstanding is in the middle east, where Her Majesty's Government continue to play an active role in diplomatic efforts towards a solution to the long-running Arab-Israel dispute. The House will recall my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Israel. I have had the opportunity to discuss in detail the position there with the American Secretary of State. King Hussein is again in Britain for talks, and the matter has been fully discussed in the EC Political Co-operation Committee.
The United Kingdom's position is unchanged; it remains based upon the principles of the Venice declaration. What is needed is action by the parties and, above all, agreement on who should participate in any talks. The judgment of all those with whom we have discussed it recently is that there is no scope for any new European Community initiative. During our presidency, we shall remain active and anxious to help in any way that we can.
That is not the only source of terrorism. The United Kingdom faces its own long-standing terrorist threat from the IRA. The House will be glad to know that the United States Senate has made valuable progress in its consideration of the extradition treaty. We warmly


welcome the continuing commitment of the United States Administration to that extradition treaty and to the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Geldof's remarks regarding the IRA and the murderers on the other side of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland have been useful and should be understood by those people in the United States who, perhaps wrongly, oppose the approval of the extradition treaty?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some people in Britain have been held responsible for terrorist offences in Italy? In a written reply that I have just received, the Home Secretary said that the cases are being kept under review. If we wish to be consistent, should not those people wanted in Italy for terrorist crimes be deported from Britain?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoilt what looked like being a unique occasion. I cannot comment on his second point at such short notice. On the first point, I congratulate him on having, for the first time, interrupted me to make a point with which I wholly agree. I almost included it in my speech, and I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman's unusual contribution. I am sorry if I have embarrassed him.
Sadly, terrorism was a topic discussed during my visit to India some weeks ago. I expect that it will be raised again in our brief meeting with the new Indian Foreign Minister when he visits London on Monday next week. His visit will give me an opportunity, which I also take now, to underline the firm commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the territorial integrity and unity of India, to renew the offer that we have made to the Indian Government and to strengthen our bilateral extradition arrangements, which are a practical expression of both countries' shared opposition to terrorism.
Another topic discussed in India was drugs. The House will welcome the fact that the Indian Government have agreed to the stationing of two British drug liaison officers in Delhi and Bombay.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Foreign Secretary, in the context of his discussions with the Indian Foreign Minister, be able to discuss the help that India could give to bring about constructive discussions with Sri Lanka? It is extremely important that something is done to bring an end to that conflict, which cannot be resolved by military means.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with that diagnosis of the state of affairs in Sri Lanka, which I was able to discuss during my visit to India. The Indian Government and Prime Minister take a close interest in it. If possible, I shall try to discuss it again later.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: There has been some anxiety about answers given during a recent foreign affairs question time, that the agreement on the placing of drugs officers had been made in principle, but that the officers were not yet in place. Will my right hon. and learned Friend press the Indian Foreign Minister on that point when he meets him?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the need to secure the implementation of the agreement, but it is proceeding along the lines that my hon. Friend would wish. I share his understandable anxiety.
My journey to the subcontinent also included Pakistan. There I had the opportunity of seeing how well Pakistan is coping with the problems posed by the enormous number of Afghan refugees. I visited the Khyber pass and was immensly struck by the phrase used by the Pakistani Foreign Minister, who said that I should encounter there the noble ghosts of Britain's past. That was a striking and vivid phrase, but sadly, my impression after visiting that camp for Afghan refugees and also a Red Cross hospital was one of suffering on a massive scale. That is why the United Kingdom remains determined to keep high on the international agenda the Soviet Union's invasion and continued occupation of Afghanistan. If Mr. Gorbachev is serious in wishing to impress the world with the Soviet desire for peace, he should start in Afghanistan.
That brings me to the wider subject of East-West relations and gives me an opportunity to restate some basic facts about British foreign policy, starting with the fact that, for 40 years, the tragic division of the European continent has set the framework for a large part or Britain's foreign and defence policies. Of course, it must be acknowledged that history has given the Russians some cause to be suspicious of threats to their security, but it must also be said that, even on the most benevolent interpretation, their military posture constitutes the most massive over-insurance in history.
It is not just military tension that divides us. The Communist system has fanned Russian suspicions by preventing the free flow of people and ideas. The divide across the continent is not just military. It is also political and social. We cannot and should not seek a good relationship with the Russians at the price of ceasing to defend our values; that need not be the case. If we believed that, we should be counselling despair. The Government and I believe that East-West relations can be improved, and the tension reduced, through dialogue and exchanges.
If the search for improved relations is to be sustained, we must never allow ourselves to forget the vital difference between societies that are open and free, and societies that are closed and unfree. There is a difference.
NATO is a free alliance, based on genuinely shared values. Free peoples vote to join NATO as was evident in the resounding pro-NATO result of the referendum carried out by Spain's Socialist Government. But although NATO members are free, they are interdependent and they have freely chosen that interdependence. In that sense, Europe and the United States need each other. The commitment of American troops and arms to the defence of western Europe is central to our security. The contribution of Europe to the political cohesion and security of the free world is equally irreplacable.
I am glad to notice that there has been a growing enthusiasm among Labour Members for Europe as an ideal, not because they relish the European relationship for its own sake but because it represents a means of asserting their instinctive and growing hostility to the United States. For them, sadly, Europe is all too often an alibi for knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Our long-standing commitment to building up the strength and unity of Europe does not spring from hostility to the Atlantic relationship. Our aim is to strengthen that partnership and, for the sake of that partnership, the Alliance needs a stronger European partner to make it more balanced.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the reported remarks


of Mr. Caspar Weinberger over the weekend that in future, NATO troops will not be confined to the area of the North Atlantic, but will be used anywhere?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not seen those reported remarks, although I know that the question of how NATO should react to out-of-area problems has been long considered. However, I would rather not be drawn into that discussion now.

Mr. Denis Healey: I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to have some sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman.
Since 1979, the Conservative Government have done a great deal, and with some success, to establish Britain's place in the European Community, and have worked, again with some success, to make the Community more effective. As a leading European nation, we welcome Europes growing confidence and coherence in dealing with economic problems. From time to time, economic tension is inevitable, and not always just across the Atlantic. There are new sources of economic tension, such as Japan and the new industrialised countries.
A strong European voice helps to make each of these problems more manageable. They are some of the issues that will be high on the agenda of Britain's six-month presidency of the Community starting next month. The presidency gives us the opportunity to secure progress on many fronts. One immediate objective is to avert, if we can, a major trade war between Europe and the United States. This was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council in the first two days of this week, and the proceedings of that Council are reported in a written answer to a parliamentary question, given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker).
On the single question of the transatlantic trade conflict, it must be said that the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community has affected some sections of United States trade. The economic effects of that are of modest significance when compared to the inestimable importance of binding two more countries through treaty ties to the Western democratic family of nations. We in Western Europe have been ready to pay an economic price for that, and we are entitled to look for a similar willingness from our friends in the United States.

Mr. William Cash: In the context of the adjourned debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—and I agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the need for greater political and economic movement within Europe—will he confirm that there is no intention to move, through the use of the Bill, towards any kind of federal Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm that that question, which my hon. Friend says arises from the adjourned debate on the Bill, is best left to consideration within that context. I shall not be drawn into any such consideration now. I ask my hon. Friend not to be unduly perturbed by fantasies of a federal Europe and to take the matter calmly. Instead, let him join me in ensuring that the Community focuses on another practical question and one of great importance

—the world agricultural problem. It is of value and importance that that was identified at the Tokyo summit, which called for global action to redirect the policies and structure of worldwide agricultural production.
It is also important that the general agreement on tariffs and trade round will include agricultural trade matters, as well as trade services. The problems of the CAP are a part, but only a part, of this world problem. Europe has a cereals surplus of about 17 million tonnes while America's cereals surplus is about 80 million tonnes. All the countries that are seeking to look after their agricultural communities, and struggling with the resultant surpluses, know that we must address the problem in concert. The CAP must adapt to changing circumstances, which must be a continuing process, and the CAP will be high on our agenda in the Community in the next six months.
We shall be dealing as well with internal Community issues. We need to keep a tight rein on the Community budget so that we live within our resources. We have a great deal to do in opening up the Community's internal market. A few weeks ago, in consultation with Ireland and Italy, we made three specific proposals for employment growth into the next decade. We hope that that will be the basis for an action plan during our office.
At the heart of all this is our commitment to setting up the largest market place in the world, within which people, goods and services can circulate easily. The United Kingdom is playing a leading and active part in formulating the European positions on all these subjects. We are doing so because we are, in that context, trusted and reliable partners. That would certainly not be the position if we followed the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition. They would isolate us not only in Europe but within NATO as well. That is why it is so important for us to have a clear understanding of Britain's place in the world, of the real threat to Britain's security. Only if we understand those things can we play our full part in collective defence and the collective pursuit of arms control.
The facts are not always palatable, but we do not do the East-West dialogue any service if we refuse to face them. The underlying realities have not changed. During the past 17 years, while the United States has observed a unilateral moratorium, the Soviet Union has amassed 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapon nerve agents, many times more than the rest of the world together. In Europe today, between the Atlantic and the Urals, the Warsaw pact has a superiority of some 1 million troops over NATO, three times as many tanks, three times as many artillery pieces and twice as many tactical aircraft.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Where do the figures come from?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know why hon. Members are so astonished. These are the facts, as set out in the defence White Paper each year. It may be uncomfortable for Labour Members to know this.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, I shall not give way.
Soviet military might on that scale represents a danger for our security that we neglect at our peril. In the face of that threat, nuclear deterrence continues to play a key role in the defence strategy of Britain and NATO. There is no room for the irresolution and gullibility of the Labour


party on a question such as this. We are right to provide bases for the NATO deterrent and to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the British deterrent, and we are right to keep our conventional forces up to strength.
It is interesting to see the way in which Opposition Members have helped to establish the case that I seek to make. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is not honouring us with his observations today—he may he in unarmed combat with the other David—said on I June:
we should be ready to replace Polaris with a minimum deterrent.
I want to be even-handed and draw my witnesses from more than one place, so I agree, too, with what the right hon. Member from Leeds, East said a few days ago, which was:
if you want to replace Polaris"—
that is the aspiration of the right hon. Member for Devonport—
there is, in fact, no alternative to Trident".
That is precisely why Her Majesty's Government are committed to the Trident programme. That is precisely why the logic of the Social Democratic party will lead at least the leader of that party to support the Trident programme. It will no longer be possible for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), within the SDP, to cobble together a fudge with the unilateralists in the Liberal party. They know that better than anyone. The leader of the Liberal party argues and claims that the party's policy position does not amount to unilateralism, hut with respect that is disingenuous.
A credible British deterrent in the 1990s means modernisation of the British deterrent now. By trying to put off that position, the leader of the Liberal party and the Liberal party are seeking to achieve unilateralism by obsolescence—obsolescence through inertia, a fate similar to that of the Liberal party in the past.[Interruption]I am astonished to be receiving such acclamation from the Opposition Benches.
The chasm between those who oppose an independent British deterrent and those who favour an independent British deterrent will not easily be papered over by an SDP-Liberal commission. Until recently we thought that we knew where this massive alliance stood on these issues, represented as it is by the somewhat solitary looking figure of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Until recently we knew that the Liberals were opposed to the maintenance of an independent deterrent and that they were opposed to the deployment of cruise. We knew that the SDP supported the deployment of cruise and that it was ready to replace Polaris. The position was perfectly clear—total disagreement. Now there is a much firmer position—a firmly proclaimed maybe. The leader of the Liberal party got it right, I suppose, when he said the other day on "Weekend World":
If we can't agree before we get into government, how are we going to agree in government?
I am happy to say that that is a question he will be able to contemplate for many years to come.
I turn to the subject in a more serious fashion. The British and French deterrents are in fact very modest in comparison with the Soviet nuclear arsenal, but certainly they are not so small that Mr. Gorbachev ignores them. On the contrary, he knows what they are. He knows that they are an effective deterrent. That is why he hopes to persuade us either to abandon them or to let them fall into

obsolescence. That is the basis of the beguiling suggestion that was made to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that the Soviet Union will cut one missile for every strategic missile that we cut.

Mr. Healey: It was made to Lord Whitelaw.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That may be so, but Mr. Gorbachev gave a different answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
However, the proposal conceals a fatal and important flaw. The Russians have over 50 times more missiles than we have. That discrepancy did not in the least discourage the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East from accepting the offer with enthusiasm. It would have been amazing to see the look of astonishment on the face of Mr. Gorbachev when they snapped it up with enthusiasm. Mr. Gorbachev knows, even if the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East do not, that this missile for missile offer is total and utter nonsense. Those are not my words. They are the words both of The Guardian and of the Daily Mirror. As The Guardian said, and I do not often find myself quoting it:
The millionaire and the pauper do not equalise their status by each throwing away a few £5 notes.
On that basis, the position of the Labour party—to give
away our deterrent for next to nothing —is as dishonourable as it is ridiculous.
One wonders how it came about that the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East accepted this proposition. One can reflect upon the ventures of the Leader of the Opposition into the deeper waters of foreign policy and conclude that he is still not safe to he allowed out without his water wings, but when one comes to the case of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East we have a different explanation.
The House will remember that in the article he wrote the other day the right hon. Gentleman was positively carried away by the "sapphire skies" and "perfumed lilacs" of the Moscow spring. He waxed lyrical about them in The Observer. And increasingly it must be said, as we look at the right hon. Gentleman, that one gains the impression of someone who, in the twilight of his political career, is returning to his first undergraduate love. I only wish that he showed half as much commitment to the NATO Alliance as he brings to his self-appointed role as Mr. Gorbachev's PR man in this country.
Of course there is a role for dialogue between East and West. That is a dialogue in which the United Kingdom is playing and must play a leading part. Neither side needs to be armed to the teeth to be secure. Neither side, quite frankly, can afford to be armed to the teeth to be secure.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say that the kind of response he is now making to Mr. Gorbachev was not the response of his Conservative colleagues when that meeting took place? I happened to be there. Will he tell the House whether he agrees that there should be a summit meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan and, if he does, what influence he is exerting in that direction?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am just coming to the point that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I was saying that there is certainly a role for the United Kingdom in promoting the dialogue that all of us want.


Neither side can be armed to the teeth to be secure. Neither side can afford to be armed in that way. Of course we acknowledge, as I acknowledged earlier in my speech, that Soviet anxieties about security exist. We have no doubt, however, that patient diplomacy can promote Western interests and security for us all. That is one of the reasons why I have made a point of visiting the Soviet Union and all the countries of eastern Europe; that is why we were very glad to welcome Mr. Gorbachev here in December 1984; that is why we intend to maintain the dialogue between the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev; that is why, on the recent parliamentary visit to the Soviet Union. to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred, the Lord President of the Council did just that; and that is why I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze, is coming to Britain on 14 and 15 July. It will be an important visit. I am looking forward to our discussions on arms control, regional and bilateral questions and human rights.
In pursuing that dialogue it would be foolish to expect that tremendous unilateral gestures by the United Kingdom will in themselves be a catalyst for agreement between the super powers. Certainly we wish that summit meeting to take place—and more than one such meeting in due course. The United Kingdom can, does and will continue to play a part in seeking, to bring about progress.
We believe that the Soviet Union is now seeking seriously to join the United States in the search for an agreement. Certainly it makes sense to proceed upon the basis of that presumption. That is what we mean when we say that we believe that we can "do business with Mr. Gorbachev." Mr. Gorbachev has his own reasons for wanting a significant arms control agreement. He knows the implications of a continued arms race for the Soviet economy, which cannot indefinitely satisfy both the military and the Soviet consumer. The Soviet arms buildup already absorbs—

Mr. Reg Freeson: That applies to all other countries.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I am not seeking to challenge that. One of the most profound reasons for seeking success in the search for arms control is the burden of arms expenditure on all nations. I do not need to be reminded of that. Indeed, anybody who has held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that as clearly as anybody else.
However, for the Soviet Union, the arms build-up already absorbs nearly 16 per cent. of its gross national product, and on present trends that percentage will continue to grow. So Mr. Gorbachev, like every other responsible leader, has a strong interest in reaching agreement on arms control.

Mr. Freeson: The reason for my intervention was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was singling out one major power for his remarks in connection with the balance between economic prosperity and the arms burden. The whole world cannot carry on like this. Millions of people are starving in Africa, while millions of other people throughout the rest of the world are living in poverty. That will lead to war, unless all of us can do something about it, instead of just pointing the finger at others.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is remaking the point that I made, but with this important addition. The countries of the Western world have to take decisions about their arms expenditure as a result of democratic consideration through the ballot box and the House of Commons. There is always the check of democratic control on the arms expenditure of democratic Governments. The Soviet Union, because of its political structure, is far better able to sustain the massive arms expenditure that it does. It is only on that basis that it is able to sustain the massive 16 per cent. of its GNP on arms. For the Soviet Union, as well as for other countries, the need to recognise the constraints of economic resources in the end begins to tell and that is why there is that motivation.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the Soviet Union spends far less on paying its troops and much more on hardware than we do?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, many components of Soviet expenditure are worth studying.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity in a moment.

Mr. Healey: I thank the Foreign Secretary so much.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question to which I want to address myself for the last minute or so—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, not now, I am sorry.—is how best to move towards the agreement that we want. Until recently, it must be said, the Russian approach has consisted mainly of unrealistic proposals, backed up by well-orchestrated appeals to world opinion. That is no way to proceed. But there are elements in the Soviet proposals, including those outlined by Mr. Gorbachev in his speech two days ago, which we believe deserve exploration. We must emphasise that progress can only be made not at press conferences but at the negotiating table. Of course, adequate verification measures remain all-important.
The recent discussion of SALT II has raised those problems starkly. The United States has been right to stick until recently to the terms of that agreement. It is right now to dismantle its two Poseidon submarines accordingly. But it must be said that the best should not be the enemy of the good. It is our hope that the United States will not feel the need to abandon the SALT II limits, despite the evidence that it has of Soviet non-compliance.
Of course, there is also an onus on the Soviet Union to demonstrate its willingness to respect those agreements strictly. If not, the mutual confidence required for future progress is in danger and everyone loses. So it is important to remember that a dialogue is taking place between East and West on these important issues. The latest Warsaw pact statements in Berlin and Budapest are now looking more like a serious response to the West's proposals.
Finally, let me remind the House of those proposals in simple terms—comprehensive and coherent arms reduction proposals that were reiterated by NATO members last month in Halifax. There are five distinct elements of the NATO arms control package—first, a 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear weapons; secondly, the


total elimination of intermediate range nuclear forces an entire category; thirdly, a worldwide total ban on chemical weapons; fourthly, the progressive reduction of conventional forces in Europe, eventually covering the whole continent from the Atlantic to the Urals; and, finally, wide-ranging confidence-building measures. That approach serves the interests of not just the United Kingdom but the Alliance as a whole. It is an approach in support of which the United Kingdom will continue to play its full part.
Arms control has to be tackled responsibly. As a distinguished British elder statesman has said,
it is the stability of the military balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact which has kept Europe at peace for over 30 years … NATO's nuclear strategy is an essential part of that balance. To threaten to upset it by refusing to let America base any of her nuclear weapons in Britain would make war more likely, not less likely".
Those words are just as true today as they were then spoken in 1981 by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
We have taken account of the realities. We have worked and will continue to work to protect and promote British interests, not just in arms control and East-West dialogue, but across the whole range of foreign policy issues. We shall continue to go on doing just that.

Mr. Denis Healey: I must start with the unfamiliar experience of congratulating the Foreign Secretary on a very lively speech. I have sometimes made rather unkind ovine comparisons about him, but I am bound to say that for much of his speech this afternoon he was frisking like a lamb, although on some occasions he presented a slightly less agreeable spectacle verging on the bizarre or even the macabre, like a dead fleece twitching. Nevertheless, taken all in all, I could not see more than six Conservative Members asleep at any time in his speech, and that must pretty well be a record.
Like the Foreign Secretary—unlike him I mean what I say—I plan to concentrate my remarks on the state of East-West relations and their impact on relations between America and Europe inside the Western Alliance. I want to discuss a little something that the Foreign Secretary hardly mentioned, although it is a British foreign affairs debate—the proper role of Britain in this complex situation. However, I must say one word about a matter which hears or could bear very directly on East-West relations and which the Foreign Secretary practically ignored, and that is the dangerous situation at the moment in the middle east.
We have a war in the Gulf between Iran and Iraq that could reach a climax this summer if Iran, as is not impossible, wins its summer offensive and then moves south into the Gulf states or exerts pressure on those states. This is an issue on which the Soviet Union and the United States seem to have recognised a common interest, but I am deeply disturbed that the new French Conservative Government seem to be attempting to intervene in that war on the side of Iran. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will say something about Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards that new French adventure.
The other part of the middle east situation which presents serious problems is the growing tension between Israel and Syria. The Foreign Secretary may recall that only a few weeks ago when President Reagan was in Tokyo he made some remarks about Syria which were

interpreted by Mr. Rabin, the Israeli Defence Secretary, in Washington that day, as implying the readiness of the United States to support military action by Israel against Syria. I am glad to say that Prime Minister Shimon Peres in Israel immediately took pains to deny that Israel had any aggressive intentions of that nature. But the party composition of the Israeli Government is due to change in October, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us something about Her Majesty's Government's attitude—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Minister of State will reply.

Mr. Healey: I am sorry. I apologise for downgrading him. He certainly deserves to be Minister of State. I hope that he will also be a Privy Councillor. My word, what a wonderful life.
I hope that the Minister of State will say something about this because it is a situation which could turn dangerous at any time over the next few months, indeed during the summer recess.
Let me deal now with the major problem of East-West relations. I think that all of us in the House welcomed the summit conference between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev in Geneva last year. We all hoped that it had established a degree of personal confidence between the two leaders which would make rapid progress possible on major areas of disarmament and some of the regional problems which are currently the most likely cause of war, such as the middle east, which I have just mentioned, Afghanistan—I endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about that and we raised it with Mr. Gorbachev when we were in Moscow—southern Africa and Central America. I hope that he is as disappointed as we are that there has been no visible sign of progress in East-West relations since the Geneva summit. Rather, the reverse has been the case. In their press statement after the summit, President: Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev assured the world that neither side sought military superiority over the other. President Reagan has repeatedly made speeches since then which suggest that he seeks military superiority over the Soviet Union, and notably in a speech at a recent ceremony in a marine training school in the United States. Mr. Weinberger and his Mephistopheles, Mr. Perle, have frequently gone much further.
President Reagan has lumped Mr. Gorbachev together with Castro, Arafat and Gaddafi as enemies of peace, although when that was pointed out to him he said:
I must have goofed some place because, believe me, I do not put him in the same category.
Inevitably, world statesmen take seriously the words used about them by other world statesmen. In some areas the United States Administration have added to these verbal insults some real injuries. The bombing of Tripoli led to the postponement of the Shultz-Shevardnadze meeting which was supposed to set the agenda for the forthcoming second summit in the United States. The Foreign Secretary must agree that Britain's support for that bombing postponed the Shevardnadze visit to London, although I was delighted to hear from him today that that visit take place in a few weeks.
President Reagan's public decision to abandon the SALT 2 constraints next autumn on the eve of his proposed date for the next summit conference must be seen by everybody who follows these events as a damaging blow to East-West relations. In the same week Washington vetoed proposals to improve human contacts between East


and West. Those proposals had already been agreed in Berne by the United States local representative and were supported by all of America's allies.
All these decisions by the United States Government were taken in flat defiance of the known views of all their allies. They deliberately sought to ascertain those views through visits by General Walters to Europe about the Tripoli bombing and a visit by Mr. Nitze to Europe about the denunciation of SALT 2. I am surprised that in the course of his speech the Foreign Secretary paid no attention to the great strains which have undoubtedly been imposed on the alliance as well as on East-West relations by those actions of the American Administration.
On top of the military and political strains on the Alliance there is now—the Foreign Secretary used these words—a trade war looming because the United States has decided to cut its imports of European food and drink in retaliation for what it sees as discrimination against some of its products as a result of the entry of Spain and Portugal to the Common Market. I fully endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about this matter, and I hope that his actions will follow his words. As an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, nobody knows better than the Foreign Secretary that a trade war between two parts of an alliance would have the most damaging political and military consequences.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what causes much offence in western Europe but certainly not to the Foreign Secretary and his supporters is the way in which the United States supports by various means terrorist regimes in Latin America in places such as Guatemala and certainly in Chile, while at the same time doing its best by military and diplomatic means to undermine a Government the United States does not like, the Government of Nicaragua?

Mr. Healey: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on that matter. One thing that slightly surprised me in the Foreign Secretary's speech was his suggestion that his loyalty to all the divagation in American policy was strengthening Britain's position in Europe. He must know better than anybody that the apparent deceit that he perpetrated against his European colleagues on the eve of the Tripoli bombing, which he knew would take place, and his support for that bombing and his position on central America have all caused serious strains between us and our European allies.
While all that has been happening on one side, the Soviet Union has made a series of new offers to the United States and the West on all the major areas of the disarmament negotiations, and so far no positive response has been elicited from the United States or the West on any one of them. Mr. Gorbachev made it clear to the noble Lord Whitelaw and to the other members of the recent delegation to Moscow that he has no interest in going to the United States for a second summit simply as an actor in a television commercial, the purpose of which is to boost President Reagan's image as a peacemaker. Mr. Gorbachev will not go the summit if there is no prospect of concrete results coming from his visit. The British Government have always rightly taken the view that summit conferences which do not produce concrete results are likely to do more harm than good.
There has been much speculation in the West, and we had a little from the Foreign Secretary today, about whether the new Soviet proposals were intended seriously and sincerely or were made simply to divide the Alliance. I recently returned from the Soviet Union. I was a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation and I was deputy leader to the deputy leader of the Government—a sort of gentleman's gentleman. The impressions which I will describe of this visit would be endorsed by all the other members of the delegation. The delegation consisted of hon. Members from all parts of the House, and we would all agree on our impressions, although we might draw different conclusions about the policies that the Government ought to follow.
We all left the Soviet Union with the conviction that Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants disarmament, not because he sees himself as potentially militarily inferior to the United States, because in some key areas he is potentially superior, not least in space, as was pointed out in "Jane's" this week. That is especially true in the shadow of the recent dsasters in the American space programme. Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants disarmament because he knows that it will be much more difficult to carry out his plans for economic reform in the Soviet Union if he cannot make cuts in his programme of defence spending. I endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about that, although I found that the slightly contemptuous way in which he described the situation came ill from a key member of a Government who came into office pledged to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. a year and have just decided for economic reasons to cut it by 6 per cent. over the next three years. I shall come back to that in a moment.
We concluded that Mr. Gorbachev genuinely wants disarmament. Secondly, I think we all agree that he has brought from Stavropol a fresh mind to Soviet foreign policy and is trying to feel his way towards a new approach. The House will know that since the Russian revolution of 1917 Soviet foreign policy has been dominated by the doctrine of the two camps—the capitalist camp and, as the Soviets call it, the Socialist camp—which are doomed to be locked in everlasting conflict until the final victory of the Socialist camp. This doctrine was fleshed out in some detail by Zhdanov shortly after the second world war.
To me, as to any student of the Soviet Union, the most important single statement made by Mr. Gorbachev since he took over was made in his speech at the recent party congress in Moscow. In it, he buried the doctrine of the two camps for good, and invoked the concepts of Leninist theory in order to justify that burial. I should like to read what he said, because it was a speech to the party faithful by the head of the party and not a speech by the leader of the Soviet Union to foreign journalists. He said:
The prevailing dialectics of present-day development consist in a combination of competition and confrontation between the two systems and in a growing tendency towards interdependence of the countries of the world community. This is precisely the way, through the struggle of opposites, through arduous effort, groping in the dark to some extent, as it were, that the controversial but interdependent and in many ways integral world is taking shape.
That profoundly important statement was made by the leader of the Soviet Communist party and the head of the Soviet Union. It implies a totally different approach to the problems of the outside world. I believe that it will prove


as cataclysmic in its consequences as the famous secret speech of his predecessor, Khrushchev, to another Soviet party congress 30 years ago.
The bombardment of new proposals from Mr. Gorbachev during the past 12 months represents an attempt to achieve that interdependence by, to quote him,
groping in the dark … as it were".
From our visit we gained the impression that a great upheaval is still going on in the personalities and structure of the machine that makes foreign policy in the Soviet Union. Mr. Shevardnadze, a man with deep party experience but no experience of world affairs, has been made Foreign Secretary. Mr. Dobrynin, a man with deep experience of diplomacy, who has spent 24 years in Washington, has been put in charge of the party machine. Mr. Yakovlev, who has served as ambassador in Canada, is a key figure in Mr. Gorbachev's inner Cabinet.
I think that we all agree that Mr. Gorbachev is now running Soviet foreign policy. That is a quite different situation from that prevailing during the latter years, at least, of Mr. Brezhnev, when Mr. Gromyko, now the President, was running foreign policy. We also gained the impression, which was recently confirmed in a public statement by Mr. Falin, the head of the Soviet news agency in Bonn, that because of the upheavals in the structure in Moscow, it is taking time for some of Gorbachev's publicly stated ideas to work through to the coalface of negotiations in Geneva.
One good example is the change in Soviet policy on research into star wars. Mr. Gorbachev first said that he thought that there should be a distinction between research in laboratories or universities, and the testing of models, in an interview with Time magazine journalists last autumn in Moscow. But that surfaced for the first time as a formal negotiating position in the recent proposals made privately by Mr. Gorbachev to President Reagan, the details of which have been slowly leaking out during the past few weeks.
If we are wise, we must accept that the real nature of the new Soviet negotiating position will take some time to work through. But it is already clear that in almost every aspect of disarmament Mr. Gorbachev is making his negotiators adopt a very different attitude towards the problem of verification. He has made it clear, as Mr. Zagladin made it clear to our delegation when we were in Moscow, that the Soviets are now prepared to allow on-site verification in many of the most important areas. I believe that those changes are important, and I deeply regret the fact that the Foreign Secretary completely failed to refer to them. He just treated us to a turgid rehash of the defence White Paper without paying the slightest attention to those very important new initiatives or to that important new trend of policy in the Soviet Union.
I shall now look at the American side of the equation. The Foreign Secretary, in his usual way, accused anybody who attacked any aspect of President Reagan's policy of being anti-American. Let me remind him that I have said nothing in criticism of President Reagan's policy that has not been said with far greater force by American ex-Ministers with whom I have worked, as Secretary of State for Defence and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Washington. I think, for example, of Mr. McNamara. Indeed, my criticisms of the President's strategic defence initiative had already been made by each of the last three American Presidents: two Republicans, Mr. Ford and Mr. Nixon; and one Democrat, Mr. Carter.
The most telling criticism of President Reagan's foreign policy was made by one of the most outstanding contributors to American international policy since the war. I refer to Mr. George Ball, who served as Minister of State under several American Presidents. He said that American foreign policy today reminded him very much of a series of pictures in a strip cartoon called, I believe, "Peanuts". That cartoon figures a rather innocent young man called Charlie Brown and a young lady who bears some resemblance to our Prime Minister called Lucy. Lucy is talking to Charlie Brown, and says: "Charlie, you should know that on this great ocean liner of life, upon which we have both embarked, there is a sun deck and deck chairs. Some of us will put up our deck chairs facing the stern of the ship so that we can see where we are coming from, and some of us will put up our deck chairs facing the prow of the ship so that we can see where we are going. Charlie, where are you going to put your deck chair?" Charlie replies, "Well I just don't seem able to get my deck chair unfolded." That paints a picture of American foreign policy today.
The tragedy is that the struggle between the ideologues and the pragmatists that we witnessed when President Reagan first took over, still continues. We had a period of some months when the pragmatists appeared to be winning. We have had periods, such as the one in which we are now enmeshed, when the ideologues have been winning. Nothing shows that more clearly than the President's surprising and confusing behaviour on SALT 2. He began by saying only a few weeks ago that he would unconditionally break the limits imposed by SALT 2 and that SALT 2 no longer had any force. A few days later he told the world at a press conference that his decision would depend on whether the Soviet Union could be persuaded
to join in things they are talking about: arms control and arms reductions.
The President then said that he would have to break SALT 2 because it was blocking plans to modernise America's strategic forces. Of course all his acolytes joined in. Mr. Larry Speakes publicly contradicted the President and said that SALT was dead. The next day, the Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, said:
I do not like the use of the word 'dead'".
There is similar confusion over America's reaction to the latest Soviet proposal for deep cuts in strategic forces on condition that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is prolonged for another 15 to 20 years. For the first time, the Russians have said that they would not oppose research into space weapons, provided that there were no tests of models. That is a proposal which the British Government should solidly endorse. The Prime Minister's only reason for opposing a ban on research into strategic defence was that it would not be possible to verify research, but the Russians are now offering to forgo a ban on the sort of research that cannot be verified and to have a ban on tests of models, all of which can be verified. When the Minister of State replies, I hope that he will tell us that, now that the Russians have removed the obstacle which prevented the Prime Minister from opposing star wars when she first met President Reagan on the matter some 18 months ago, the Government will change their mind.
We are told by the newspapers that Mr. Kampelman, the President's negotiator, believes that it is well worth exploring the offer and that. President Reagan sent an encouraging letter to Mr. Gorbachev at the same time. We read in this morning's edition of The Times, however, that


a senior Pentagon official—Mephistopheles again, I suspect—Mr. Perle, told the defence correspondent of The Times only yesterday that America would reject the Soviet offer because it would block star wars.
It is difficult for any Government, allied or otherwise, to negotiate with Washington when its policy is so confused and contradictory. It is not anti-American to say that, because this criticism is made in the United States day in and day out by those who have been responsible for American defence policy, foreign policy and disarmament policy.
In spite of this, I think that we would all agree—those of us who visited Moscow recently—that there is no question but that the Soviet Union is anxious to negotiate on all these issues if it is humanly possible to do so. One advantage of having Mr. Dobrynin at the top of the party policy structure in this area with 24 years of experience of the Washington jungle and many close contacts—even friends—among senior American politicians and officials is that the Russians will not easily take no for an answer. Although the abandonment of SALT 2 by the United States, which is threatened for this autumn, could allow the Soviet Union to establish a commanding lead over the United States by doubling the number of warheads on their intercontinental SS 18s—as the Foreign Secretary will know, this is why the American chiefs of staff were insistent that the United States should observe the limits—I believe that their response to anything that the Americans do will be proportionate, and that they will wait and see before they take any action.
With American policy so contradictory and so confused, I believe that Mr. Gorbachev and President Gromyko—the latter made the same point when he met us—were sincere when they said that they hoped that the United Kingdom could play a constructive role in helping the super-powers to reach agreement. President Gromyko made a comparison with the role that Sir Anthony Eden had played on many occasions during on many occasions during and after the war. I have no doubt that this is why, in spite of disappointment with some aspects of British policy, Mr. Gorbachev has decided finally that his Foreign Secretary should meet our Foreign Secretary to discuss these matters.
I shall run quickly over the areas where I believe that the British Government could make a useful contribution. First, there is the ban on chemical weapons. From the way that the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter, one would not have thought that the British Government were deeply concerned about the American proposal to produce binary weapons and have refused to commit themselves to receive them if the American Government request them to do so. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will confirm that. No, he has sunk in a study of his papers. That is very wise.
Britain is chairing the discussions that are taking place in Geneva on a ban on chemical weapons. I understand that Mr. Issraelyan has been in London this week—he may still be here—to discuss this issue. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us something about the attitude that the British Government will take in the talks. We were told in Moscow that the Soviet Government are now prepared to allow the on-site inspection of the destruction both of stocks of chemical weapons and their production facilities. That certainly removes a major obstacle —

perhaps not every obstacle—to an agreement. The whole world would breathe more easily if that could be achieved.
The second area in which I believe that we have a central responsibility is negotiation for a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests. We on the Opposition Benches—I think that I speak for all the Opposition parties that are represented this afternoon, but I am not quite sure what the latest position of the party for Devonport is on this matter—believe that a comprehensive test ban treaty would be by far the first and best contribution to a complete freeze on the development of new weapons.
Scientists have long believed that verification is possible even without on-site inspection. We were told that the Soviet Government have now agreed to on-site inspection of test sites both by national and international means, by which I would assume that they would accept the manning of monitoring stations inside the Soviet Union by representatives of the non-aligned states, which have promised to undertake this responsibility.
We are still told that the United Kingdom wants such an agreement; the Prime Minister has said so on many occasions. Why does she not invite the Soviet Union and the United States to meet Britain, as they did up to a few years ago when America broke off the talks, to discuss the introduction of a ban? Or are we sliding into outright opposition to a ban because the Ministry of Defence believes that we need tests to perfect the Trident warhead? I was confused, as I expect all Members were, by an answer given on 13 May by the Secretary of State for Defence, who said:
We all wish that a way can be found as soon as possible of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether but. while they are there, testing is essential for safety and operational reasons.
The British Government have never said that in the past. But then the dear old Secretary of State for Defence went on to say:
The Government's policy is to do everything possible to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as verification can be made credible."—[Official Report, 13 May Vol. 97, c. 542.]
What the hell is the Government's policy? Are they in favour of a ban if verification is possible, or are they against one as long as nuclear weapons exist? I hope that the Minister of State will clear up this disturbing confusion. Until the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement neither the Government nor any other Government had maintained that testing of existing weapons was necessary.
The third area where progress is possible and where we can play a role is on the strategic defence initiative. The Russians have now accepted the Prime Minister's position that it is not possible to verify a ban on research in people's heads or laboratories. It is possible, however, to ban the testing of models. Indeed, both sides announce these tests when they are carried out because they know that the other side will observe them.
Will not the Government reconsider their support for the strategic defence initiative? Any commercial gains that they might have expected from co-operation with the initiative went for a burton a long time ago. We know that British firms now expect at the most a few scores of millions of dollars against the $1,500 million for which the previous Secretary of State for Defence was asking. We know also that British participation in the research will be damaging to our own research efforts and will be subject


to technological control by the United States. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us whether the Government are prepared, in the light of this new situation, to change their position on SDI.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who has constituents in Heriot-Watt university working on optical lasers, may I tell my right hon. Friend that some of those engaged in the work are worried—and not before time about—intellectual property rights, an issue which has not been sorted out?

Mr. Healey: I am aware of that, and I hope that the Government will publish the memorandum of understanding. The German memorandum has already been leaked totally to a German newspaper and some of the features of the German memorandum of understanding are profoundly disturbing to us in Britain. There can be no security reason for the British Government not publishing the same details.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of SDI, is it not obvious that Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet authorities are so anxious to come towards the West and scale down the expense of their armaments because the United States is developing SDI and the fear of the expense of that is too great for the Soviet authorities to contemplate?

Mr. Healey: The Soviet authorities obviously do not want to spend money on SDI. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has that feeling. We are always told by the United States that the Soviet Union is spending more money on SDI than the United States. That, of course, is totally untrue and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me on that.
The point about SDI is that the Soviet Union does not want to have to spend more money in an area which will compete with the introduction of new technology into its own industry. However, it is capable of doing so if it is forced. It does not want to spend more money on any weapons, nor do we in Britain—which is quite clear from the Government's decision—or the American Congress. The real question is whether we can turn those economic pressures into useful disarmament agreements. I believe that we are now moving into a world in which the pressure of defence spending on national budgets is becoming intolerable for everybody, for us in the West no less than for the Soviet Union.
The American Congress is imposing a cut on planned American defence spending of $80 billion over the next three years. The British Government, originally pledged to a 3 per cent. annual increase, have now announced a 6 per cent. cut in defence spending over the next three years. I have an increasing feeling, which some arms control experts have had for some time, that perhaps a series of leap-frogging unilateral cuts will be the way in which, in the end, some form of disarmament is finally achieved. It is vital that, as this process proceeds, the unilateral cuts which are made by the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union should not destabilise the balance between the two sides, especially in Europe. Again, that is where Britain's position is vital. Stability requires America's commitment to the defence of western Europe. Since the war NATO has always been an indispensable foundation for Britain's security. However, at the moment NATO is

desperately one-sided and needs much more influence from Europe. I think that that is common ground between both sides of the House.
The key contribution which Europe can make towards NATO is in conventional weapons. That has been made clear again and again by American Administration spokesmen and by American Congressmen such as Senator Sam Nunn, who is threatening massive cuts in America's conventional contribution unless the Europeans improve their conventional contribution. There is no chance of Britain improving its conventional contribution if it goes ahead with the Trident programme. I am glad to see the Minister of State agree with that. Trident will be taking 40 per cent. of our budget for equipment in a couple of years. If that money was spent on improving the equipment of our reserve force, it is calculated that we could double our ready conventional forces in central Europe.
It is now more than 40 years since the end of the second world war. Enormous changes have taken place in every part of the world. Nobody, least of all the Government, who are chopping and changing their policies on all these issues from week to week, should be ashamed of confronting new situations with new policies. In 1945 many of us believed that George Orwell's prediction for 1984 was a realistic sketch of how the Communist countries might develop by that year. It has proved to be far from the reality. The Foreign Secretary, like me, went to Hungary recently. In many respects that country is more free than many countries in western Europe—certainly Greece under the colonels and Turkey. In many ways I think that Budapest has recreated the Austro-Hungarian empire in a far more effective form. Its relations with Austria are far closer than those with its Communist neighbour, Romania, as the Foreign Secretary knows very well. Immense changes have taken place in the Soviet Union even during the 25 years in which I have been a regular visitor.
In the United States power has shifted from the eastern seaboard, with its traditional and human concern with western Europe, to the southern and western states with increasing Hispanic and Asian populations which exert a growing influence on American policy. Whatever we do, American attention will be increasingly focused on Latin America and the western Pacific.
Those trends offer opportunities as well as some dangers for western Europe. In Britain we have every interest in seeking to build a new international security system based on co-operation between the two alliances and on co-operation, which I hope that the Foreign Secretary was attempting to suggest in one part of his speech, between eastern Europe and western Europe. I believe that in this new developing world, in which we in the West are groping in the dark no less than the Russians. Britain will play the central role which I believe it has the political and economic capacity to perform.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am extremely flattered to be called this early in the debate, and it is an honour and pleasure to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I confirm what he said about the harmony of the recent delegation to the Soviet Union and I should like to pay a tribute to him, as he has paid tribute to the Lord President, for the way in


which, in all the private meetings, he supported the Lord President and the delegation as a whole and our national position. We are much indebted to him for that.
I want to deal with these points in my own way during my speech, but, in a matter-of-fact way, I shall confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said about the four basic conclusions that came out of the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Moscow.
The first conclusion, with which I would agree— I shall confirm all four—is that Mr. Gorbachev sincerely wants disarmament. I would agree that there is a new approach to Soviet foreign policy, and I would endorse that rather telling quote from the speech at the Party Congress to the party. I would also confirm the third conclusion, that the structure of the making of foreign policy is very much Mr. Gorbachev's in the running thereof. That should not be forgotten. However, I would add that one gets the impression that he is running foreign policy with a relaxed and reasonably consulted and agreeable leadership. In other words, he is taking advice and is relaxed with those who advise him. I would agree with the fourth and final conclusion, that the Soviet Union is anxious to negotiate. I wanted to read all those into the record because they are important.
I shall make one preliminary point before I begin what I want to say. It is relevant to my own speech. It is nonsense, in terms of taking a grip and assessing approaches that come out of the Soviet Union, always to say that those approaches amount to propaganda, that their major motivation is one of propaganda and that anyone who happens to agree with any part of them is somehow being anti-American. I shall address the House frankly. I would say to the House, as has been said before —I have said it myself in previous debates on foreign affairs— that in the course of dealing with Americans and American policy one is only making the same points as many people in the United States are making themselves. There is grave concern in the United States, as we all know, over aspects of foreign policy. I shall deal with some of the specifics, although not at too great a length.
I should like to cover the current situation from both the Washington and the Moscow angle and then to concentrate a little on the position of Britain, the contribution that we can make, and how vigorously we should prosecute the options available to us.
It is impossible to ignore the United States in a foreign affairs debate, because our policy is rightly intertwined with that of our major ally. We are extremely dependent upon the Americans. Questions therefore arise as to how independent we can be in our approaches to them and our comments about them. I hope that the whole House also agrees that the NATO Alliance must be the backbone of any foreign policy that we may have. We are in the debt of the United States and we shall remain so. I approve of that and fully go along with it. Moreover, we are more dependent on the United States than most countries because, as a result of a decision taken in Nassau in 1961, we depend upon the Americans for our national nuclear deterrent. I fully agree with that policy and differ from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the Labour party on that aspect, although with the foreign policy aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's speech a large measure of agreement will emerge.
My hon. Friends do not want to hear me go on about the special relationship with the United States, but it is important to acknowledge it. We are dealing with friends and with a democracy. We are dealing with people who differ among themselves and we can be reasonably vigorous in our approach to them. I believe that in the longer term we shall pay a price if we do not adopt such an approach.
At present the United States and Washington are under the domination—that is perhaps a rather extreme way of putting it—of a hard-line Right-wing Administration. There is no hiding that fact. They stood for election as such and were elected as such. Having attended the Republican convention in Dallas, President Reagan's inauguration, and so on. I confess that I had sincere hopes that President Reagan would want to go down as a man of peace in his second term of office. I have to tell the House, however, that I no longer believe that to be so, and I am not alone in that view. I shall refer to the Pentagon in less colourful terms than were used earlier, but aided by the newer appointments at the White House the Pentagon appears to all intents and purposes to be getting its way. Nevertheless, there are great divisions within the United States and in Washington. Congressional feeling is extremely strong. There are misgivings about SALT 2, about the rearmament programme and how on earth it is to be financed, about central America and even to a lesser extent about the middle east.
It is clear to anyone who visits Washington that there is also an clement, albeit not the predominant element, which firmly believes that the arms race and general policy can be conducted on the lines of stretching the Soviet economy because it is not strong enough to stand the competition and will eventually decline, if not collapse, with the possibility of a change in the system and the belief that in any event the capitalist system will eventually triumph. That is not the majority view, but it is a serious matter because anyone who tangles with Soviet patriotism or attempts to push the Soviet Union to the wall is adopting an extremely dangerous policy. The opposite is perhaps much better—the hope that Mr. Gorbachev's internal plans will be successful, leading to a more relaxed attitude to the outside world and progress on the important questions of human rights, contacts, transfers, visits, tourism and the rest. However, there seems little prospect of any change in the approach of the American Administration until the next presidential election in 1988.
My impression of Soviet policy is that the Soviet Union is playing it long and playing it patiently, but it will not go on doing so for ever and at some time we in the West may have to respond more positively. The views that I have expressed in previous foreign policy debates were unchanged by my visit to the Soviet Union. The last thing that I want is for the House to imagine that I have come back from the Soviet Union trumpeting out some great new view as a result of my visit. I am repeating the views that I have expressed before, but with the additional confirmation of a further visit to the Soviet Union and further contact with its leadership at the highest level.
I am absolutely convinced—this is most important—that the Soviet Union is genuine in its desire for peace and for dialogue. I do not say that naively. We are dealing with tough people who have a different system and the way ahead will not be easy. There will be hard negotiations ahead, but I believe that the desire of the Soviet leaders is genuine and will have to be met. They are not insane so


they want peace, not war, but there are also practical reasons relating to the Soviet economy. They want to concentrate on their economy. With due respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) it goes a little further than the strategic defence initiative, although that is one element. The emphasis in the Soviet Union since the change in leadership has been to concentrate on internal change and the speed and extent of the changes have been remarkable by any standards, especially by conservative standards of conduct in the Soviet Union over many years under a system that tends to stagnate.
There is evidence that the Soviet leaders want progress in that direction and they know that they cannot afford the arms race as well. Nevertheless, they will afford it if they have to, because they are determined about it. The economy is the practical reason for their willingness to do business. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we can do business with them, and I believe that we should get on with it as quickly as possible because the mood will not last forever. Even Communist leaders have to deliver to their people. Even Soviet leaders can stick out their necks only for so long before they suffer, hopefully not by being chopped off. A leadership that has been so dynamic in bringing about change cannot expect to be universally loved by all those who have been moved or dismissed. The moves have been extensive throughout the system, and we saw evidence of that.

Mr. David Crouch: As my hon. Friend knows, I also visited the Soviet Union. On the important question of the economic problems facing the Soviet Union, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the need to earn hard currency to buy grain to make up its agricultural deficiency? The cost of that grain is between $6 billion and $7 billion per year and total earnings in hard currency are no more than that due to the collapse of oil prices and the halving of the 60 per cent. of hard currency earnings attributable to oil.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important aspect. It was clear that the Soviet Union wished to trade with us to gain more hard currency rather than relying on the prices of raw materials such as oil. There are undoubted possibilities for British business. That point should be made loud and clear. Companies should get out there and see what they can do by way of joint enterprises, and so on.
By way of illustration of the difficulties that face bridge builders, when we were in the Soviet Union at one moment we were talking about the summit and the very next moment we heard on the news the United States pronouncement threatening abrogation of the SALT 2 treaty. That did not make life easy. At that moment I was not exactly proud of the Western Alliance.
In regard to the summit, I want to emphasise what has been said. I am sure that the Soviet Union wants the summit, but it must be able to deliver. Leaders of all systems have to deliver. That was put graphically to us by Mr. Gorbachev when he said that to go on any basis other than the agreement of something that was carefully prepared would be to deceive the people. It would deceive the people to talk agreeably for five and a half hours and come out smiling, as applied to only one summit. More has to be achieved at the next summit.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to bring what influence they can to bear upon the

United States not to miss the opportunity of another summit, because the Soviet Union is willing to participate. The British people want and expect that. If things get difficult in East-West and international relations, commensurate with that difficulty will be a mounting electoral relevance of that aspect of foreign affairs. At the next election I do not think that any of us can expect not to mention foreign affairs. The worse things get, the more we will have to talk about it. I do not want us or our Government to be on the defensive.
In regard to the United Kingdom position, I have dealt with the need for a slightly more vigorous approach and greater independence. I appreciate the background of the United States and NATO, the fear of American isolationism and all the rest of it. Nevertheless, there is a duty to speak out on such topics as SDI and star wars, but I do not propose to go into detail because I have already done so in a previous debate. On SALT 2, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government for doing their utmost to save the day.
Progress can be made, and we should speak out to achieve it, on chemical weapons, accompanied by verification, and on nuclear testing. The whole Soviet attitude on verification was simple. It was, "Just come on, try us and see." I do not see why we should not do that. If it did not work out, it would be simple to dispense with all that had been said as propaganda. In other words, the gauntlet was thrown down firmly and I think that it should be picked up.
As for the future, one deals very much with the United States and the Western Alliance in debates on East-West relations, but we must not forget our European links and our eventual future with Europe. Because of the dependence on the United States that I have been talking about, the British voice is regrettably getting weaker rather than stronger. That voice represents a considerable force for good in the world, but it can be exercised more powerfully if it is concerted with a policy that recognises our future as being within Europe.
There is a fundamental choice that has not yet been made. I say that advisedly and deliberately. People who try to have it all ways often end up with nothing. Our voice should always he fielded in these matters to the maximum effect. The world expects it. I am confident enough to feel that the world would like it too.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in the debate, because he and I shared a car in the wanderings in the Soviet Union that have been described extensively. If the executive of the Leominster Conservative association and the executive of Leominster Liberal association knew the degree of political co-operation that we were able to develop as we discussed these issues, he and I might both be in trouble. Today he has spoken clearly, frankly and with much the same emphasis as so many members of that delegation shared in their reaction to the visit to the Soviet Union. The Minister of State should be aware that the hon. Gentleman gave a true reflection of reactions on all sides. Even though we may draw some different conclusions, our assessments were similar.
If there is one depressing thought that hangs over a foreign affairs debate in present circumstances, it is that to many of us there is no apparent distinctive British


foreign policy, at least on the part of the Prime Minister. That impression was brought vividly home by her support of and direct complicity in the United States bombing of Libya, an act so misguided that it is now being openly questioned at the most senior level in the White House. The Prime Minister is President Reagan's most reliable and compliant friend, but it is of no value in a friendship not to be a candid friend and not to be prepared to take a clearly different view at times. That the right hon. Lady has failed to do. I say that as a dedicated supporter of NATO and our alliance with the United States.
I am strongly opposed to those who rank the United States and the USSR as two equivalent super-powers and two equivalent societies which pose the same threats and the same dangers to us and who are equally hostile to us. They cannot be viewed in that light by anyone who values democracy and the extent to which the United States exemplifies that democracy, but at present it happens to be the case that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is moving marginally in directions of which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends approve, while the foreign policy of the United States has been moving steadily away from those directions over the last few years. That view is shared by a great many people within the United States of America.
I believe that many of President Reagan's foreign policies add up to a recipe for disaster. That is why I wish to see a stronger British challenge to many of those policies, including those on East-West relations and arms control. That is why I wish to see a stronger British effort to end United States support for authoritarian regimes like that in Chile, and of American attempts to overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. That is why I want to see a stronger British effort in other areas of United States foreign policy where the United States is exercising a damaging influence.
To take a specific example, let us consider Namibia, which we did not discuss yesterday in the extensive and good debate on South Africa. I hope that the British Government will seek to use their influence to keep Namibia on the agenda and to stop the current American attempt to link Namibia with the ending of Cuban involvement in Angola. I am in favour of the ending of Cuban involvement, but it is not relevant to the solution of the Namibian problem, nor is it reasonable to visit upon those fighting for the genuine independence of Namibia responsibility for Cuban actions in that other territory.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly express that sentiment in the light of the fact that South African policy on Namibia is significantly motivated by the Cuban presence in Angola?

Mr. Beith: South Africa involvement in Namibia has been to defy the United Nations, to defy the international community and to deny democracy and self-determination to the people of that country over a long period. Currently, the fears of the South African Government arc indeed exacerbated by their relationship to Angola, in which they have a substantial military involvement in backing the UNITA forces. In any objective assessment of the rights of the people of Namibia, it is irrelevant to seek to apply the criterion of Cuban disengagement.
On the issue of East-West relations, which has dominated the debate so far, all of us who took part in the

recent visit to Moscow were impressed by the shrewdness and relative open-mindedness of General Secretary Gorbachev. We reached perhaps three similar conclusions. The first is that Gorbachev is serious about what he has to do to make changes in the Soviet economy and to raise the standard of living of the people. He is applying himself to that task. I see his recent visit to Hungary as part of the process by which he learns from other states and compares other relevant experience. There are great opportunities for British trade in the longer term as that process goes on. That will require some revision of our present COCOM rules and the extent to which we restrict technological imports of things that the Soviet Union can buy as single items freely on the open market in other parts of the world.
We all gained the impression that the Soviet Union means business about arms control. That impression is confirmed by more recent statements and by what Mr. Gorbachev said about SDI. That statement went much further than earlier ones. I believe that the US signals on SALT 2 are the wrong signals. They are symptomatic of the fact that around President Reagan are several people who simply do not believe in arms control. I acquit the British Government of holding that view, but there are among the President's advisers some people who do not believe in arms control and do not want it. They want a substantial arms build-up. They see a commercial advantage for a lot of people in the United States in that, and they are rushing like mad to get as many SDI contracts as possible in place before the end of President Reagan's term of office.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Mr. Gorbachev raised all these issues when he talked to us, but that President Gromyko spoke at greater length. He said that the American Establishment had dealt blow after blow against SALT 2 and had finally put a high explosive charge under it, but that he did not think the American people wanted to bury it. He made some distinction between certain politicians and the wishes of the American people. He made it quite clear that they wanted SALT 2 and that he hoped that we would help to do something about that.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman faithfully records what was said in answer to a question. It is rather interesting that President Gromyko did not himself raise complaints about SALT 2—his comments came in answer to a question raised by our delegation.
I must differentiate between my view and that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). In some of his public responses he seemed almost to be eating out of the hand of General Secretary Gorbachev when he suggested arrangements that a British Government could come to with the Soviet Government. The Foreign Secretary made much of the incongruity of the proposition that we could achieve a great deal by reducing the number of Soviet missiles in exchange for removing British deterrent. That is not a useful calculation, for the reasons that the Foreign Secretary gave. The arguments for and against the British deterrent concern whether it has a real defence utility. That argument should be taking place rather more widely than in the confines of the alliance to which I happen to belong. It is a significant argument.
The Foreign Secretary did not refer to the other aspects of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said concerning the possibility that, in exchange for the


removal of United States nuclear bases in Britain, the Soviet Union would agree not to target its weapons on the United Kingdom. That proposition is so valueless that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman attached any credibility to it. It seemed to me to be a way of getting some return for a decision, which has already been taken in the Labour party, to remove what I believe is the central feature of our nuclear defence.
Even those who are firmly wedded to the desirability, on wider political or strategic grounds, of having a British nuclear deterrent must concede that central to the defence of the United Kingdom is the presence of the NATO nuclear deterent on British soil. If that is removed, our fundamental defence stance is, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, destabilised. It is the basis of our current defence. The British deterent poses a quite separate question, which is whether we could conceive of launching a nuclear response when the NATO deterrent was not brought to bear because the United States did not regard it as right to launch it. On that, as with the quite separate issue of whether there should be a direct exchange between the Soviet Union and Britain on the British deterrent, I do not believe that we should do side deals with the Soviet Union. Our role is to seek a wider settlement and an arms agreement which involves the two super-powers and us alongside, not to do a side deal, because that would not achieve general disarmament.
I should like to mention a third impression which many of us got but which has not been mentioned so far. I do not believe that General Secretary Gorbachev has addressed himself to the civil rights problems in his country or to the implications of changes in the style of the Soviet economy for what people will want in terms of civil rights and freedom. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) raised these issues on our behalf. I see no sign of any improvement in civil rights in regard to political dissidents or religious groups. There are many professing Christians who are imprisoned, and there are many Jews who want to emigrate.
We hope that we will get a positive response to some of our suggestions and the cases that we took up, but I see no positive sign yet of a crack in the basic Soviet attitude. The Soviet Union's efforts to win friends in the West would be enormously strengthened if it made changes in regard to civil rights. Moreover, it would greatly assist General Secretary Gorbachev's domestic policies if he ceased to make enemies of a great many people who would make perfectly good Soviet citizens if only he gave them a chance to be. Nobody should have any illusions that the significant changes in Soviet foreign policy or in how its economy is run signal, as yet, any change in basic civil rights—the position in that respect remains as worrying and unsatisfactory as I believe it has been for a long time.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman referred to my raising human rights with General Secretary Gorbachev and the President. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when I raised the matter with Mr. Gorbachev he smiled and said, "I know what is coming."? I think that I dared to respond, "This is no laughing matter." I told him and the President that this was an issue that clouded public opinion in the West and was taken serously here, that no matter how seriously we discuss disarmament, verification, SALT 2 and the like, human rights were of prime importance to us.

Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We tried, and continue to try, as I hope do the Government, to get

it across to the Soviet leadership that this is not some propaganda exercise. We do not raise these matters to belittle the Soviet Union; we raise them because they are of the deepest concern to our constituents and a great many other people in the West.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: Much as I should like to give way, I shall not do so as I shall be in trouble with the Chair, because I have a number of other matters to raise.
I should now like to consider the middle east. I am glad that the Prime Minister visited Israel. I am glad that she was moved, as she clearly was, by her visit to Yad Vashern—a reminder of the horrific experience of the Jewish people. I am also glad that she found so much warmth towards Britain among so many Israelis. Those were welcome features of the visit. I am also glad that she made an effort to talk to some people from the Palestinian community, despite the difficulties attendant upon arranging that. I am deeply sorry, however, that the visit was able to achieve so little in advancing their cause or in advancing a general resolution of middle east problems.
There is no escaping the role and responsibility of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the solution of that problem, and it is no use trying to bypass it or assuming that other leaders can be found to replace the PLO in that capacity. There is a lesson there for Israel, Jordan, Britain and the United States, which keeps looking around for means of avoiding talking to the PLO. There are also lessons there for Syria, which has been trying systematically to undermine the leadership of the PLO.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I have just said that I shall not. I will be in trouble with the Chair if I give way much more.
In a debate such as this, we must also pay attention to some of the forgotten or nearly forgotten conflicts of the world. I refer, for example, to Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union is still present in large numbers and increasingly embarrassed about it. It is looking for ways of reducing its commitment. We must keep up the diplomatic pressure to make the Soviet leaders recognise that the West cannot stand by and watch a country such as Afghanistan invaded and make no complaint or fail to raise the issue. I was struck, during the visit of Hu Yaobang of the People's Republic of China, by how strongly China still feels about the Russian presence in Afghanistan. That was a very successful visit, and Hu Yaobang brought life and sparkle to the diplomatic scene when he was over here. There is no doubt about the strength of Chinese feeling about the continued Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, and we should be as ready as the Chinese are to continue the pressure on that issue.
In Eritrea, there is still massive Soviet involvement in backing the Ethiopian regime with its denial of self-determination to the Eritreans. That battle is increasing, and civil war in that country makes a solution to the famine problems impossible. It greatly worsens the problems about which so many British people care deeply and in respect of which so many of them have tried to help and contribute.
Moroccan occupation continues in the western Sahara, and the people of that country continue to be denied their


rights, despite OAU approval and the approval of about half the nations of the world for the recovery of their statehood and status, to which they are clearly entitled on any assessment of international law. I hope that the British Government will not rest on the rather cosy relationship that they have sometimes had with Morocco and that they will continue to press that case.
Earlier I mentioned the situation in Sri Lanka, and the Foreign Secretary kindly said that he would continue to press that point with the Indian Foreign Minister during his visit to see whether there are ways in which we can help to secure resolutions to a problem to which there is no military solution. Unless there is some constitutional development there, there cannot be a military solution.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady makes it impossible for me to say no.

Miss Boothroyd: I understand that in the last 48 hours the Sri Lankan Cabinet has agreed proposals to put to the all-party conference to be held next month in Sri Lanka, which will create provisional councils in that country with a considerable measure of devolution and opportunities for co-ordination between the regions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome those proposals and to wish them well, while at the same time wishing for a cessation of hostilities on the part of the security forces and the Tamil extremists.

Mr. Beith: I know that the hon. Lady takes a close interest in what goes on in Sri Lanka. I have not studied the proposals that she described, but I hope that she will use all her influence to ensure that the Government of Sri Lanka recognise that they must make significant constitutional moves if they are to avoid a continued, insoluble problem in that country.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Beith: This will be my last occasion.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he reflect that one of the problems in Sri Lanka has been the systematic exclusion of the Tamil people from the constitutional process? I believe that to be at the root of the problem, and it is compounded by the large number of arms sales by a number of western European countries to the Government of Sri Lanka, as a result of which the civil war is now raging. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one part of the peace process would be the cessation of arms sales to the Government of Sri Lanka?

Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about arms sales. I am glad that I have allowed two balanced interventions on Sri Lanka.
We must be given back our self-respect in relation to foreign policy and should be given the right to an independent British foreign policy. On several occasions, it has seemed as if the Foreign Secretary has been on the point of doing precisely that. I felt so when he made his notable speech on the strategic defence initiative. There is no better critique in existence of the SDI programme than the 18-point summary of its weaknesses and drawbacks that was delivered by the Foreign Secretary, but scarcely

had he made it than the Prime Minister came to the House effectively to dismiss it. She made it very clear, very quickly, that she would back SDI all the way.
When the Foreign Secretary spoke in Halifax, Nova Scotia and gave some indication of Western and European concern about the American attitude to SALT 2, he was beginning to show the signs of an independent British foreign policy, but it only needed the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and that independence quickly disappeared from the Government's stance.
Even today, I felt that there was a coded criticism of the United States in what the Foreign Secretary said about his hopes that the United States would feel the need not to breach SALT 2. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will come to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and find words to disagree with that as well and to make it clear that such independence is not to be tolerated.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I remind the hon. Gentleman that in answering questions about SALT 2 the Prime Minister has already used almost exactly similar language and pointed out that she hopes strongly that SALT 2 will be observed by both sides.

Mr. Beith: What is it about our Prime Minister that makes even her choice of the same phrases as the Foreign Secretary sound totally different in flavour and meaning? There is something about our Prime Minister that makes her able to convince large sections of Right-wing Republican opinion in the United States that she is totally with them, while convincing many people both in America and this country who hold rather different views that she is very much against them. The Foreign Secretary evokes a rather different response.
Indeed, I think that the Prime Minister could win the Republican primary in California outright, but the stance that would make it easy for her to do so will help to make it impossible for her to win the next general election in this country. I believe that the lack of independence and self-respect in foreign policy is something with which the British people are becoming increasingly impatient.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Fate sometimes smiles on Back Benchers, and, having failed to catch your eye in last night's debate on South Africa, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of returning to that theme without apology, sure in the knowledge that I have on my side the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who declared yesterday that the South Africa debate
is one of the most important issues which the House has ever debated".—[Official Report, 17 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 901.]
I do not dissent from that view. The passing of about 24 hours has allowed a few particles of dust to settle. It has given us some time for limited reflection. It gives us time to be selective and to extract from yesterday's debate points of commission, so to speak, of particular significance and points of omission of similar significance.
A debate on South Africa may to some observers be seen as the chosen battlefield for a cavalry charge by the Right wing of the Conservative party which is met by a counter-charge from the Left wing of the Labour party. That leaves quite a number of us as innocent bystanders, increasingly confused as the exchange becomes more heated.
During much of last night's debate I felt that all too often the fundamental objective was overlooked. What in the de-imperialist and de-colonial era can we possibly do about South Africa? The objective of what we do and say must surely be to try to encourage those people who can create a fairer and more equitable society in South Africa to do so and to discourage those people who do not want that objective from pursuing their aims. During much of last night's debate, that fundamental simplistic objective was lost sight of.
I have chosen three themes, and I shall be selective and somewhat disjointed in my comments because I am aware that I am pursuing a debate that has passed. I want to talk first about the changes that have happened in South Africa. I want to look again at selected aspects of the debate on sanctions and then, in more detail, and perhaps more controversially, at what by implication we appear to be demanding from South Africa.
The hours of debate yesterday in my judgment produced insufficient and inadequate acknowledgement and recognition of the changes that have taken place in South Africa. I was in Pretoria in January 1985 and spent the best part of a week in discussion with what for convenience one can call the Pretoria establishment. That was 18 months ago. I listened to what they said and drew my conclusions.
In January 1985 I concluded that the Pretoria establishment did not want fundamental change. It was playing with words and would adapt superficially and insignificantly to preserve the status quo. Just over a year later, in February 1986, I returned to Pretoria and had almost identical discussions with the same people. I detected a fundamental difference. Within those 12 months the Pretoria establishment had changed its tune. It was no longer playing around for a superficial representation of apartheid. It was talking of fundamental change.
I shall not go much further than that because the next dimension of my analysis is that the Pretoria establishment did not know its goal or objective and, therefore, the route it should follow and, therefore, the speed at which it should go. Nevertheless, a vital change had happened in 12 months, which was that the heart of Afrikanerdom had realised that things could not continue as they had been doing and as, perhaps, in its heart of hearts it would like them to continue. Yesterday, Opposition Members debased, devalued and weakened their case. Obviously, there are strong arguments for the imposition of sanctions, but Opposition Members did not give due acknowledgement to a significant change that has taken place in the thinking of the Afrikaner.
I have now seen the video of last Monday's TV-am programme, which included an exchange between a spokesman from the South African embassy and the Leader of the Opposition. The embassy official argued that the South African Government had taken a number of significant steps towards dismantling and removing apartheid. The Leader of the Opposition dismissed him as a "fibber". We could spend a long time arguing about the delineation between grand apartheid, petty apartheid and the whole area in between, but during the past two years or more there have been most significant changes in South African society. I ask the House to consider the removal of job reservations; the repealing of the Mixed Marriages Act; of the Immorality Act; and of influx control; from the perspective of the Afrikaner, what amounts to the

constitutional revolution of the establishment of the tricameral Parliament. There is also the extension of freehold rights for blacks and the declared objectives of education parity for all population groups. That is just a selection. Five or 10 years ago none of that was remotely conceivable in the history of the development of the South African nation.
The embassy official, whom I happen to know and respect, was not telling fibs when he said that Pretoria was no longer defending apartheid, but he did not go the whole way. The greater truth, which he neither contradicted nor asserted, is that Pretoria does not know what it is defending. That is an essential dimension of the crisis that is too often too little perceived by many people who presume to participate in the debate on South Africa. Pretoria does not know where it is going, the route it should take, or the speed at which it should travel. So much for the changes which have happened.
I now turn to the central issue of sanctions and the degree to which we should or should not impose further "effective economic measures" as the Opposition would' have us do. Last night the House dismissed that proposition, and it was utterly right to do so. However, I agree with Opposition Members on one essential point. The Government's amendment substituted for "effective economic measures" the phraseology "effective measures". I listened to virtually all the debate and left completely confused about what the Government meant by "effective measures". If the debate demonstrated, anything, it demonstrated the meaninglessness of that expression. There are no effective measures other than the wholesale economic measures which Opposition Members wish to see implemented. I was further struck forcefully by the Government's inability to attach any meaning to that expression.
For my part, I would neither support nor refuse to support the concept of "effective measures", unless it could be explained to me what those measures were. At present I am none the wiser.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are considerable difficulties in setting out precisely what is to be done in this context at this juncture, and that we have several weeks in which to get things right? Furthermore., does he accept that it is absolutely essential to bear in mind that, although some people would like to see apartheid dismantled, as I would, others would indulge their moral consciences at the expense of the carnage of black people, if things went wrong.

Mr. Hunter: Once again, on this topic as on many others, I find myself embracing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. That is an added dimension to the complexity of the debate which we had last night and which will continue. I would prefer the debate to have been postponed until the Government had pursued negotiations with Commonwealth Heads of State, the European Community, the seven industrial nations and so on

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little unfair? If he had listened carefully to the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, he would have seen at least some attempt to give signals, but one which could not be taken further because it was constrained by the complete intransigence of the Prime Minister in this area.

Mr. Hunter: No. Until the last sentiment I could agree with much of that. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall develop an answer to that point.
In our debate last October I declared my opposition to further economic measures against South Africa. During the intervening months the position has demonstrably and irrefutably deteriorated. This has led some of my hon. Friends to change the emphasis in their thinking and to believe that, perhaps, we should reconsider the position. Indeed, we should always reassess. However, I have confirmed and consolidated my opinion of last October that the imposition of further economic sanctions against South Africa would be highly undesirable. The arguments against sanctions were well rehearsed last night, so I will accelerate through them.
The first essential question is how effectively sanctions can be implemented. In a sense it is a peripheral point: I am arguing not about their merits or otherwise, but about the practical course of action to follow. If sanctions were not implemented universally, we would merely lose our commercial interests and hand over a free market to our competitors—the sanctions busters. That is peripheral. Let us assume, however, that sanctions can be implemented effectively.
There was one omission from last night's debate. I apologise if I am mistaken in saying that not one hon. Member pointed out that the first casualties of effective economic sanctions against South Africa would be.1·5million black immigrant workers in South Africa.

Mr. Budgen: They did.

Mr. Hunter: I apologise if I missed that point. I do not recall it being made. It would be a long and arduous march home for 1·5 million people. Perhaps some would be herded on to cattle wagons and sent back by railroads. Many would not survive physically. None would survive financially. One and a half million is a lot of human lives.
The second victims would be the blacks in South Africa whose jobs, lifestyles, and financial expectations would be hit. More to the point, those to whom social spending and Government programmes are directed would be casualties.
The economies of the front-line states—the border states—would be savaged by effective economic sanctions.
A further dimension was not stressed sufficiently in yesterday's debate. The debate more or less assumed that, in the event of the implementation of sanctions, the South African Government would sit idly by and endure whatever had to be endured. There is a further dimension—that of counter-sanctions. Peter Younghusband, a South African journalist, in an article in the Daily Mail, of all newspapers, a week or so ago, said that counter-sanctions would wreak havoc on the economy of the entire African continent.
Each year, $200 million-worth of goods go from South Africa to the rest of the African continent. An amount of $1 million goes back to South Africa. If that $200 million were cut off, what would happen? Ninety-nine per cent. of Lesotho's imports are from South Africa. The figure for Swaziland is 91 per cent. and for Botswana 88 per cent. The President of Zimbabwe acknowledged that his country would last three weeks without its supply routes from South Africa. If we implement wholesale economic sanctions against South Africa, and if the South Africans

indulge in counter-sanctions, within two months we would have to call off the effort because we could not finance the crippling burden which our policy would inflict on other countries, some of whom are independent Commonwealth countries.
There are two further misconceptions which, in my judgment, ultimately destroy the validity of the arguments for sanctions. The misconception of lesser importance is the proposition that sanctions are a nice, cosy, remote and non-violent means of creating change in South African society. They are not. Deliberately to impoverish and starve is to promote and provoke violence. Deliberately to promote and provoke violence cannot be right. To believe that by promoting and provoking violence in South Africa one can create a more just and equitable society is self-delusion, pure and simple.
A greater misconception is the ultimate fallacy in the argument in favour of the imposition of sanctions. Suppose they work. Suppose we irrevocably destroy South Africa financially. What then? Do hon. Members believe that by cornering an Afrikaner and destroying his economic well-being they will turn him, overnight, into a western enlightened liberal? They would achieve nothing of the sort.
We talk about the laager mentality of the Afrikaner. Once upon a time, the Afrikaner nation, in its embryonic state, was forced into an inner laager. On 15 December 1838, 10,000 black men attacked that inner laager. Six hours later, 3,000 were dead. The forces of law and order in South Africa have not yet started to deliver their goods. If we push the Afrikaner into a position of no hope and no retreat, we shall not achieve our objective of creating a fairer and more equitable society in that country.
Economic sanctions have worked—not economic sanctions imposed by politicians but economic sanctions which are the result of that indefinable quality, business confidence. There is no significant new investment in South Africa. Whatever disinvestment can take place under the law of the land is taking place. What Oppostion hon. Members seek to achieve, through advocating a policy for the future, is already the reality. Business confidence has gone. There is a remarkable naivety in the cry for effective economic measures. They have already been taken by the international business community, not by the politician. That is the tragedy. How is progress financed? How are social programmes financed outside a flourishing national economy?
Last night Opposition Members referred to education in South Africa. They pointed out the disparity in spending on a white child as compared with a black child. This year, the public expenditure programme in South Africa is running at 41 billion rands. If there were to be equality of spending on education for black children and white children, that amount must be doubled. If there is no economic base on which to finance that spending, where will it come from?
What do we expect of South Africa? The Government have said frequently that they do not seek to impose a form of government on South Africa. Rather, they seek the creation of a form of government acceptable to all races. I think that Opposition Members would broadly accept that. Perhaps they would prefer the expression "acceptable to the majority". In the debate yesterday, words such as "democracy", "freedom", "unitary state", and so on, were used. What do they mean in reality? If a President of Tanzania says that he does not believe in democracy and


a President of Zimbabwe says that he does not believe in democracy—I ask the question only because I want to know the answer—why should a President of South Africa believe in democracy? Why do we demand of South Africa more than we demand of the rest of the African continent, Commonwealth countries included?
The forces of evolution are at work in South Africa. There have been significant achievements in the past two years. My belief still is that the forces of evolution in South Africa need help and encouragement, not discouragement, and that the House was right last night to reject the proposition of wholesale economic measures.

8 pm

Mr. Leo Abse: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has clearly learnt what most parliamentarians learn—never throw away the notes of an undelivered speech. I advise him that, if he is not to cause dissonances in House of Commons debates, he should put his notes in the drawer for longer than 24 hours.
All of us are concerned that the summit talks may be again at risk. It is inevitable when such an awesome possibility arises that people of my generation are bound to look back to the end of the war. How did it come about that all the high hopes of co-operation held by my generation during the immediate post-way years—that the West would work with the Soviet Union—were so speedily dashed? NATO was established and the long cold war began.
Our husbandry of our atomic know-how, for the sake of what proved, inevitably, to be a short-term advantage, was undoubtedly one of the main reasons. But there were good reasons for the Soviet Union, after the long appeasement years, to be fearful again. Even more important reasons were clearly shaping Russia's attitude. I recalled them vividly a few weeks ago when, for the first time in 40 years, I was in Vienna, observing the obscene election of Waldheim and witnessing the appalling manner in which the Austrians. unlike the Germans, seek to exculpate themselves from their own terrible guilt. I naturally thought of the immediate post-war years. By the accident of war, I had found myself awaiting demobilisation in a small RAF unit—the only one in Vienna—surrounded by a sea of Russian troops. That was my first contact with them. Some of their political commissars were Jewish and I was able to speak to them in my sort of Yiddish.

Mr. Winnick: Welsh.

Mr. Abse: I may have spoken Yiddish with a Welsh accent, but those commissars were able to understand me. I dare say that those poor fellows were killed off in Stalin's paranoic years. The bulk of the troops however were kids, and I thought of them as such even then when I was a young man. They were simple, untutored men scraped up from the fringes of the Soviet empire. The depletion of the Soviet Union's manpower was tragically visible to us. That impress—the reminder of the 20 million Russians who had lost their lives—has always been with me and, more importantly and more relevantly, it has always been with the Soviet leadership who, until recently, were men of my age, or, indeed, usually older. A failure of imagination by the West to appreciate that those losses prompted the compulsive, often seemingly irrational, security needs of

Russia led to the speedy contretemps and misunderstandings that, within two years of the end of the war, were to bring about the great and dangerous division that has extended, as has been emphasised, for almost 40 years.
Now, when I listen to the interesting contributions by hon. Members who had the privilege of visiting Russia with the delegation, it is clear that a new generation of Soviet leaders is emerging, less shaped, perhaps less distorted, by wartime memories. There is, too, a new awareness in Western Europe of the need to rethink policies towards Russia. I emphasise that that is not how the United States of America sees it. During an academic sojourn of four or five weeks in the United States during its pre-election period, I saw people who pressed home to me that the gulf between European and Reagan thinking was wider than the Atlantic ocean. Doubtless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, there has been a shift from the more sophisticated east to the south and west of America which has played its part, but it is unhappily true that the British Government are colluding in widening the gap between the United States and Europe, as evidenced by the Libyan adventure. Constant apologies for our subjugation to American policies come from the Prime Minister and from the leader of the Social Democratic Party, who in the past few weeks has lectured us about the dangers of anti-Americanism. That constant refrain, which we heard again from the Foreign Secretary, is based on their belief that our defence security wholly depends upon America.
If we act on such an assumption, we are on the road to Armageddon. The aeroplanes from American bases here could one day carry H-bombs inviting our obliteration. It is nonsense to believe that military necessity leaves us with no alternative but to condone Reagan's self-indulgent caprices. The Libyan intervention shows how important it is that we free ourselves from our thraldom to the United States.
There are more than 250 million people in Western Europe with tremendous industrial resources and long military and diplomatic experience, who are potentially able to defend themselves militarily and diplomatically against some 200 million Russians who are contending at the same time with 1 billion Chinese on their borders, with the rising dangers of Islamic fundamentalism in eastern Russia and with all the disgruntled peoples of eastern Europe. If we had a Government who genuinely placed upon their agenda the Europeanisation of west European security, instead of attempting to sabotage it—as occurred with the Anglo-American attack on Libya—we might avoid the final disaster.
Those who accuse people who speak like me, British people, of anti-Americanism and those whose emotional attachment to the United States is similar to that of the Leader of the SDP or the Prime Minister—who complain that the British seem to have been seized with an anti-American mood—are mocking the realism which they lack. It is no use us pretending that Reagan's America is that of Roosevelt or of Kennedy. There is abroad in the United States a dangerous politicised fundamentalism, an unhappy form of Christianity, that is soaked in gnosticism, a belief that this world is so sunk in evil that rescue is necessary. Such gnostic beliefs lead to the conclusion that there is a demiurge, or a limited evil power. That power is said to be the satanic representative of cosmic evil. It can then be speedily identified as the Russians and, therefore, must at all costs he overcome.
United States policies are ambiguous because they are worked out within the ambience of President Reagan's provocative "evil empire" speeches. Those who, out of old affections, plead, as I suspect the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) pleaded in his interesting contribution, that Reagan is a mere blink in the history of American Presidents, should stop deceiving themselves and those whom they seek to influence.
Last week, we saw Vice-President Bush's setback against a fundamentalist contender for the presidency. We are speaking not of a wild fringe movement but of a movement in the main-stream of American politics. Europe could, if we permitted it, become the victim of that primitive mythology. It is almost impossible to open a newspaper without encountering corroboration of that new mood. The last bastion in the United States of America—the Supreme Court—has been breached with the President nominating Judge Scalia and making William Rehnquist the Chief Justice. That was, of course, applauded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, the fundamentalists who are having such an inimical influence upon America and upon American foreign policy.
The worst insanity that emerges from America's contemporary sick culture is Reagan's yearning for the fulfilment of what he has called his dream. That is the misshapen dream of star wars defence. Every depth psychologist would insist that what none of us can tolerate, and what we fear most, is to be reduced to utter helplessness—the utter helplessness of a babe. The goal of star wars is to be enabled to launch nuclear attacks upon an enemy without fear of retaliation. To aim to reduce the Soviet Union to helplessness is to invite pre-emptive retaliation. For Britain blithely to co-operate in such an adventure would be to co-operate in our suicide. Narcissistic rage, as the psychoanalysts describe it, can move groups as well as individuals. Such deep-seated rage, which has been provoked by concepts such as star wars, is relieved only by violence. But we should not be disengaging from American adventurism merely out of self-interest.
Last month, I wandered round Czechoslovakia. These days, in Britain, it is an almost forgotten country. No people in Europe have less deserved their fate. Betrayed at Munich by Britain, brutally ruled by Nazi Germany and then invaded by Russia, the Czechs nevertheless show extraordinary resilience, surviving the Russian occupation with wondrous ingenuity and pressing to their limits the parameters imposed upon them by the Soviet Union, yet never allowing their personal integrity to be eroded by the evasions that they are daily compelled to make. We owe it to such people to do everything possible to assist them. But so long as Britain and Europe remain locked into American policies, so long will the Russians wish to throw out their defensive perimeters to produce the greatest possible area within which they believe they have freedom to manoeuvre. That is why the hapless Russian service men, to whom no Czech will speak, remain in Czechoslovakia.
It is becoming increasingly clear that to assist such lands and ourselves, we need a considerable lurch in our foreign and defence policies. Fortunately, with the British people now taking an unusual interest in non-domestic affairs, there is every hope that, come the election, they will

not be debauched by tax concessions and other bribes. I trust that, ere long, we shall have a Government more conscious of the fact that peace cannot be assured, as this Government believe, by deferring on almost every issue to dangerous American backwoodsmen.

Sir Anthony Grant: Listening to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) and remembering what great campaigners both he and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) have been in the cause of Soviet jewry caused me to reflect that there must be a big improvement in the lot of those unhappy people before some of the euphoria that we heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is entirely justified.
As the debate started unnecessarily late, I shall not make a great tour d'horizon. I shall confine myself to the Western European Union.
The debate has prompted me to make two rather cynical observations. Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) describing the oppressive South African measures that have been lifted from the backs of the unhappy black people—the marriage laws, the sexual repressions and others —reminded me that for many years successive Governments—the Conservative Government of which I was a member, and Labour Governments—so far from seeking to impose sanctions when all those oppressive
measures were still in force in South Africa, tried to encourage civil trade with South Africa. I make no comment, but merely make that observation.
I was inspired to make a second cynical observation after listening with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who mentioned Afghanistan. It was right that he should remind us—and it caused me to reflect—that about a third of the population of Afghanistan have become refugees. Those who have been killed in Afghanistan can be numbered not in tens, or hundreds, or thousands, but in hundreds of thousands. The amount of coverage of Afghanistan by our media has been about two or three hours. The coverage of South Africa must run into hundreds of hours. I merely make those observations without comment.
I shall confine my remarks to the Western European Union, of which I have been a member for nine years, serving on the defence committee and on the General Affairs Committee. We participate in the Western European Union because we believe that it is a vital political forum concerned with the defence of the West, because it is the political arm of NATO—the Atlantic Alliance—and because it involves the important contribution of France outside NATO. The seven European countries which shared views on Europe formed the Western European Union by treaty, animated by a desire for collective defence and committed to the Atlantic Alliance and the European Community.
The cornerstone of the treaty is article 5, which states:
If any of the high contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other high contracting parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.
I quote that to demonstrate the importance of the Western European Union. The wording of the treaty is in some


ways more powerful than that of NATO. In addition, in an age of highly technical defence, often cloaked in great secrecy, it is essential that there should be an instrument which is an effective communication between the military authorities and European public opinion.
The Western European Union is also a forum for discussion of civil, military, technical, technological and scientific co-operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is chairman of the Committee on Scientific, Technological and Aerospace Questions, plays a notable and distinguished part in the Western European Union. That should he recorded by colleagues here who are not aware of the good work being done.
No organisation remains stable. It either grows and adapts to change or it dies. Over the nine years that I have been a member of the WEU, I have observed a steady decline in its effectiveness. Therefore, I rejoiced in the move to reactivate it at the Rome meeting in 1984. I thought that the WEU would play an enhanced role and that other nations would be encouraged to participate. I thought that the Council of Ministers and our own Ministers would share that view.
Alas, at the WEU meeting in Venice this year, Ministers showed little intention of achieving this. They poured cold water on the whole idea. I know that recently in Paris the secretary-general announced some initiatives and set up agencies of a relatively minor nature, but no real assurance was given that the WEU was to play an enhanced role.
The hopes of many members were dashed. As so often happens in European matters, initiatives and enthusiasms sink in the bureaucratic and diplomatic sludge. The WEU Assembly is often treated by the Council of Ministers perfunctorily and with little more than contempt on some occasions.
It suits the Council of Ministers to have the Assembly as a cosmetic front, but it seems determined to avoid anything being done, any change being made or any proposal being accepted that would result in Ministers and their officials being shaken out of their cosy, comfortable nest. I regret that in the nine years that I have been in the WEU I cannot recall a British Defence Minister coming to address the WEU. We are always pleased to see Foreign Office Ministers, and we were delighted to see the noble Lady, Baroness Young, at our last meeting. Defence is a fundamental subject. Other nations manage to field their top Defence Ministers. Why do we not do so as well?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in a rather colourful phrase, described the dilemma faced by the Liberal and SDP Members on defence as meaning that they were likely to suffer obsolescence through inertia. I shall not burst a blood vessel if that happens to the alliance, but I do not want it to happen to the WEU.
I can give two recent examples of ministerial inertia. First, the President of the WEU, Mr. Caro, of France, proposed a powerful initiative for the WEU to help in the battle against terrorism.
In the Assembly of the WEU we spend hours debating this subject, condemning it, regretting it and deploring it, but nothing happens in the way of practical results. President Caro produced helpful ideas for the seven nations to co-ordinate their actions against this beastly modern scourge, but once again buckets of cold water were immediately poured on his idea by the Ministers. They said that they preferred to deal through the EEC,

despite the fact that the EEC has shown remarkably little enterprise in this respect and, in the case of Greece, positive negligence.
Secondly, there is the problem of enlargement. The WEU either grows or it dies. I should have thought it was obvious that the inclusion of Portugal, which is keen to join and is a member of NATO, and later that of Spain, would enhance the interests of the WEU. It was most creditable of the Spanish people, so wisely led by the moderate Labour Government, to decide quite firmly that they wish to remain in NATO, despite the clamourings and squawkings of the lunatic Left. In addition, Denmark, Norway and even Turkey, if they so wished, could make a contribution to the WEU.
Such an enlargement is opposed by Ministers on the astonishing ground that in some way the political will of the Seven might be jeopardised by the accession of new candidates. What nonsense. What great political will does the WEU exercise now that would be disturbed by the presence of our oldest ally, Portugal? All that will be disturbed is the comfortable lethargy of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Tindemans, the Belgian Foreign Minister, described what, in his view, were the three main obstacles to the enlargement or revitalisation of the WEU, all of which were completely inexplicable. The first was:
the instinctive feelings of national and cultural identity that had to he overcome.
What does that mean? The second obstacle was:
The post-war political concensus in many European countries was in danger of breaking down.
How will that be made worse by other nations joining the WEU?
Thirdly, he said:
Matters relating to security have to be dealt with in a discreet way, and should not be shouted from the rooftops.
We all know that from our own Parliaments. At least he went on to say:
The WEU could make a significant contribution to the cause of European unity, especially as its expertise encompasses the vital field of defence policy.
So it can.
Ministers of the WEU, and that includes ours, must show a great deal more drive and determination to make this organisation work in the interests of the defence of the West. I have no doubt about the commitment of my right hon. and learned Friends to the European cause or to the defence of our nation and of the West. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an absolute assurance that the Government wholly support the WEU and its revitalisation and will do all that they can to encourage the lethargic other Ministers in the WEU to secure its advancement as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Greville Janner: Like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), I shall in due course settle into my own corner of interest, but I shall first make a few detours, in view of what has so far been said.
It was sad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) about South Africa, particularly the part that referred to the need to defer and avoid sanctions for the sake of the black people. Sometimes we should listen to the voices of those who are being persecuted when considering what should be done to prevent that persecution. I proclaim my own sad


conclusion that there is no alternative to firm sanctions, and my great regret that they have not been imposed and will not be imposed by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those of us who share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) are listening? We are listening to Chief Buthelezi, who represents the largest tribal grouping of black Africans and to Bishop Mokoena, who represents 4·5 million black Anglicans. They are both leaders of oppressed black groups who are asking us not to introduce economic sanctions.

Mr. Janner: There are matters about which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree. This is not one of them. His selective listening is, alas, in this case leading him to a false conclusion. The vast majority of black people in that country wish nothing more than an end to the vicious apartheid regime under which they are forced to live, and believe that it is only real and effective pressure from other lands that can bring that about. They further believe that they will not get it from our Government.
I listened with concern to the speeches about the United States. I share the prevalent distaste for its foreign policy, but I do not share the anti-American feeling that is pervading the House and entering too many debates in this country. I wholly abhor and hate many of the policies of our own Government, but I proclaim the freedom that we have to attack those policies. We do not attack our own country because we loathe the policies of this Government. We take steps to get rid of that Government.
We should apply precisely the same principles in our approach to the United States—a great and vibrant democracy in which huge numbers of its citizens not only loathe the policies of their Government but have the freedom to say so openly, clearly and vehemently. The pendulum, which today has unfortunately swung in the direction of the far Right in the United States Supreme Court, will, I trust, swing back as swiftly as possible. Meanwhile, let those who go to the United States, as well as to countries where people cannot speak their mind, never forget the difference between the freedom that is enjoyed in the United States and the West to attack the Governments and policies of the day as opposed to the lack of freedom that is to be found in totalitarian regimes, especially in the East but also in the middle east.
That leads me to my next point. I so greatly wish that hon. Members, not least my hon. Friends, would understand the difference between democratic lands, such as Israel, with all its failings, in which its citizens may attack its Government—Israel has a Government created by a curious form of democracy, as real as anyone can achieve— and the totalitarian dictatorships in, for example, Syria, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and feudal monarchies: oppressive and wicked lands where there is no right to speak without being shot, unless one happens to agree with those who are in command. Any Arab who speaks against the Palestine Liberation Organisation is not only liable to be shot but too often is. That is the problem.
I do not see how my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East can be right about negotiations with the PLO, when the PLO is not prepared to recognise the right of

those with whom it is asked to negotiate, to exist as a country and as a secure land; the PLO is not prepared to give up terrorism in any land, including this one in which we are so free to speak. We have the right to speak without the fear of being shot. All civilians should have the right, in any land, to speak their minds without being terrorised.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her visit to Israel. I was glad that she went. I was there shortly afterwards. She is a Tory Prime Minister. Israel has a Labour Prime Minister who is a close friend of mine. The two of them got on and emerged after their talks saying that it would be boring if there was nothing to disagree about. Neither of them was bored. That is the civilised way in which people ought to do business. I was also glad that at the end of her visit the Prime Minister said that one could not look just to the PLO when negotiating for peace in the middle east. She pronounced openly and clearly that others must be involved in the search for peace in that area.
I cannot spend the time that I would wish in commenting about India, but what a marvellous and magnificent land that is. How it can be governed by anybody is beyond the belief of those who visit and who love it.
I am glad that India's Foreign Minister is to visit this country. Those of us who rejoice in democracy and in the freedom to speak, take pride in a land where 780 million people enjoy democracy. Democracy does not exist in any country next to it. Indeed, it does not exist almost anywhere else in that part of the world. Certainly democracy does not exist, other than in Israel, anywhere in the middle east.
The position in Sri Lanka is not as simple as many of my hon. Friends would suggest. I have been there. The Government of Sri Lanka have tried very hard to create conditions of peace with the Tamils. They have failed. We have failed in Ireland. We in this Chamber are not in a particularly marvellous position to criticise others for their failures. Ours stand before us in all the brutality of death.
I express appreciation to all those colleagues, on both sides of the House, who took the opportunity of their visit to Moscow to raise matters relating to human rights in general, with the Soviet authorities, and who also raised a matter that is very dear to me. All my grandparents were fortunate enough to emerge from the Soviet Union. I want others, not least Jewish people, to have the right to do the same.
I shall never forget that the Red Army was our ally in war. Those who are most hurt today by the Soviet Union's behaviour over human rights are its friends.
I hope that one day those who have won the award of the all-party Parliamentary Committee for the release of Soviet Jewry—people like Vladimir Slepak, Ida Nudel, Alexander Lerner—as well as Alexei Levin and others less known—will come to this House and be received in freedom. I hope that Shcharansky, whose freedom we celebrate, will come here one day and will receive the Bible that so many of us signed, in the hope but never in the belief that he would be free to receive it from us.
That leaves one matter upon which I shall spend a little time. On almost every occasion that I have sought to raise it I have been ruled out of order. I was invited to raise it on another hon. Member's Adjournment debate last Friday, but that debate did not take place.
It is right that we should look at the past in order to light our way into the future. We should look at what happened to British soldiers who were murdered after they


were taken prisoner in order that we may see who did it, and why. We must try to ensure that the kind of people who followed the Fuehrer never achieve power here, as they have done, alas, in other lands, very recently. I refer to the Waldheim matter.
I wish to place before the House information that has not been placed before it ill the past. A number of British military personnel were arrested in Greece by German Army Group E. Lieutenant Kurt Waldheim was in charge of all interrogations. I have here a copy of a document that I have passed to the Secretary of State for Defence, which shows that in December 1943 Waldheim was in total charge of all interrogations by that unit.
In April 1944—at a time when, at one stage, Waldheim said that he was out of the army but when clear records show that this was a lie—a team of seven British commandos and three Greek partisans set out on a raid. They were captured. All of them were interrogated by Waldheim's unit, and probably by Waldheim himself. Only one of them survived, Captain William Blythe. He died several years ago. The rest, so far as we know, were sent for what was called "sonderbehandlung." I served as a war crimes investigator in the British Army of the Rhine. "Sonderbehandlung" was a hideous word which we all got to know. It means, very simply, elimination—the murder of prisoners and civilians.
All these British prisoners of war other than Bill Blythe were eliminated. I even have a telegram in German, which I shall translate. It referred to certain people, including a man called Carpenter, a radio operator, and a Greek sailor called Ligaris. The telegram was sent after Waldheim had asked what was to be done with these people after their interrogation was over.
They are no longer required".
said his opposite number,
and they should be sent for 'sonderbehandlung' in accordance with the Fuehrer's order.
They died. They were murdered.
I have managed to trace some of the brave commandos, in this country. Details have been provided to the Defence Secretary, along with another four names which came to light last week. Finally, a letter was received by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who was kind enough to send a copy to me. He is with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation in Gibraltar, and I thank him for his agreement that I should raise this case here. I thank my research assistant, Steven Cohen, who visited a man called Frank Notley, who kindly gave permission for his name to be used and who lives in Warrington. I shall read only two paragraphs from his extremely moving letter. He said:
I was a regular soldier and after completing 23 years in the Army I retired in 1957. I was taken prisoner in North Africa and escaped on two occasions from camps in Italy and Germany. I know a little about this swine Waldheim. I first saw him at Camp 182 in Italy. He was present when approximately 30 British soldiers who had been shot dead were returned to Camp 182 for burial. The poor lads were slung out of the back of German lorries as if they were sacks of garbage. You may draw your own conclusion what hand he had in this matter. I again saw him at the Interrogation Centre where I was held.
I hope that other British prisoners who saw this man Waldheim involved with the death of British troops will come forward and let it be known.
Waldheim was not brought to justice. I have a United Nations War Crimes Commission document which puts him in category A—the top category—of war criminals.

He was accused by the Yugoslavs for putting hostages to death and for murder. He was never tried. Instead, he became Secretary-General of the United Nations. The first time around, the United Kingdom vetoed his appointment. The second time, we approved it. I hope that the Minister of State will explain why the veto was applied and why it was lifted on the second occasion. If he tells us that that was because of suspected inefficiency, no one in his right mind will believe it. Waldheim was an efficient senior staff officer in charge of interrogations and the veto was applied because we knew precisely what he had been up to during the war, including his part in the killing of Yugoslavs, Greeks, Italians and Jews. Perhaps we did not know about the British prisoners, but we know about them now.
When I first inquired about the British prisoners at business questions, the Leader of the House said:
I see no particular profit in having a debate … or getting involved in the controversies that now rage between the World Jewish Congress and the supporters of Dr. Waldheim". [Official Report, 1 May 1986; Vol. 96, c. 1108.]
That was a disgraceful statement which, I am pleased to say, he was good enough effectively to withdraw. He personally asked the Ministry of Defence to conduct an inquiry into these matters. We have not had the result yet.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us gentiles—if I can put it that way—non-Jewish people, are becoming increasingly concerned by what we are learning and particularly at the idea that a man could in any way be category A? What on earth were the United Nations and the British vetting systems up to?

Mr. Janner: I thank my hon. Friend. This is not a matter of Jewish concern; it is a matter of human rights concern, for everybody. It is true that Waldheim was in Greece at the time when almost the entire Jewish communities of Salonika and Rhodes were wiped out, but far more Yugoslavs, Italians and Greeks were killed by his unit and, directly or indirectly, not a few British.
Why that happened is a curious story. I have a feeling, which I hope one day to be able to prove, that when the war with the Germans was over we, and the Americans in particular, had only one main concern, and that was now to deal with the Russians. Therefore, thousands of Nazi war criminals were allowed to go free.
If one then asks why the Russians approved of Waldheim's appointment that is another question. They well knew what he was up to. The answer was probably that they were blocking a Finn whom they did not want as Secretary-General, partly because he was a Finn, partly, I fear, for other reasons, and perhaps partly because people sometimes like to have others in positions of authority over whom they believe that they have some hold.
What is now coming out is that all over the world there has been a cover-up operation, and I regret to say that it appears to extend to Britain. Researchers went to the Public Record Office to look for files about British prisioners of war and about Waldheim. Among the files, they found that a series was missing.
I asked the Prime Minister why those files were missing and whether we could see them. She replied that we could not see them because they were of military or security intelligence importance. I then asked what they were about. How, after 40 years, can that be? She replied that it was not customary to give details of the contents of files


of that sort. I have written again and told her that I would not ask for anything to be revealed which could affect Britain's security in any way. No self-respecting Member of the House would do so. But I cannot believe that after 40 years there could be anything that could today affect Britian's security by one iota; that there could be anything from that time which could affect what happens today in the military or other intelligence sphere affect this land.
I believe that this concealment is part of a cover-up operation which applies to Yugoslavia, to the United States, the United Nations and certainly to the Soviet Union. I should like to think that Britain was not involved in it. When those missing files are opened up we will know. If they do not show complicity, let us see them. They cannot have military significance after all these years. If they conceal guilt and they are covered up, there will be a swell of feeling on both sides of the House. Hon. Members will demand that they be produced.

Mr. Dalyell: Ought there not then to be a Government statement on the operation of the weeding system?

Mr. Janner: I agree.
I have been trying hard to obtain a statement from the Government and have failed. Perhaps if there is enough pressure—many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about this—we shall get the documents and people will see that this is not a vendetta against a man for what he did years ago. He has lied yesterday and today about the matter. He has been elected President of Austria and our Government have sent congratulations to him while we are holding an inquiry into his involvement in the killing of British prisoners of war. How could we do that?
When Waldheim is seated on the presidential throne, are we to send representatives to clap and to cheer? I fear that we shall and that we shall say that it is normal protocol because he was elected.
If that happens I remind the House that it will be a direct repetition of what we did, not in 1933 when Hitler was elected, but in 1934 when he became head of state. A reception was held at which British people were present along with the rest. We as a nation regretted that for many years thereafter.
There are standards of decency of which we in Britain can be hugely proud; standards without which some of us would not be in the House, proclaiming our freedom to speak our minds. But that freedom must be watched over and preserved. The Waldheim case is of great importance, as a touchstone of decency. There will be many in the House who will pursue it until we reach the truth.

Mr. William Shelton: I am glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), whose work I admire very much. He is a great fighter for justice and truth. I hope that what he has said under privilege this evening is well substantiated. Knowing him, I am sure that it is.
I envied the certainty with which he spoke in the first part of his speech for several million blacks in South Africa and the certainty with which he spoke for several million whites in the United States. I wish that I could be as certain about the feelings of those in other countries as he is.
It is on southern Africa that I want to spend a few minutes this evening, not South Africa, but a major country of great importance in south-west Africa —Namibia. I was there a few months ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn), who led our delegation.
I am speaking about Namibia because it is an important country for three reasons. They are little known but nevertheless they are important. First, it has enormous untapped mineral wealth and is one of the wealthiest countries in minerals that are least developed. The Rossing uranium mine in Namibia provides, I think, about 45 per cent. of all the uranium used in western Europe. That fact alone must give cause for thought.
The second reason for its importance is that it lies between Angola to the north and South Africa, which occupied many hours of parliamentary time recently, to the south. What happens in Namibia in the next year or two will have an impact on South Africa. Thirdly, the changes that are taking place in Namibia could be a lesson to us as to what, perhaps, could or should happen in South Africa.
Namibia is undergoing profound constitutional change. In June last year the new transitional Government was inaugurated and power was genuinely transferred from South Africa to this new Government. The Government have complete power and authority, except, at the moment, in foreign affairs and external defence. The Government are genuinely democratic and pluralist and there is no apartheid in Namibia, except in certain schools, and the new Government are in the process of legislating to remove that.
The Government are transitional because the leaders in the Cabinet, which contains only one white member, the rest being black, are not elected—they are party leaders. The House will know about the problem of the South West Africa People's Organisation. It is based in Angola and is leading guerrilla raids into the north of Namibia. It has refused to take part in this transitional Government.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Government are illegal.

Mr. Shelton: As the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) says, they do not have international recognition. That is why I say that they are transitional. That Government lost their case in the European Court of Justice, but their purpose, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would support in general terms, if not in particular, is to form a new constitution which they will put to a referendum. If and when it is approved, they will hold internationally supervised elections which they hope will lead to international recognition.
Namibia stands at a crossroads and that is why I am drawing it to the attention of the House. One road could well lead to a Marxist-style unitary state, a closed state as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, along the lines of its northern neighbour Angola, or along the lines of Mozambique. Such a state would be hostile to our interests and probably wretched for the people of Namibia. The other road could just possibly lead in the opposite direction, to a free, prosperous, democratic, westward—looking open state. The road which Namibia follows may well depend upon the outcome of the offensive taking place in Angola against UNITA, and waged by Angolan troops led by Cubans, advised by


Russians and East Germans and using jets that are piloted, I am advised, by Cubans and East Germans. That gives the House an idea of the state of play in that offensive.
The offensive has now started and its purpose is to crush UNITA and to drive Dr. Savimbi out of Jamba where he has his headquarters. If UNITA survives it will he because it has received help from South Africa. More important, it will also have received help from our friend and colleague, the United States. If UNITA survives it will be because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that have been supplied by the United States to the UNITA movement. One might say that South Africa should not help UNITA, but I say that it should, and the United States has also lent a helping hand.
Let us examine what would flow from the crushing of UNITA by Angolan forces. The Cubans would then be able to withdraw from the north of Angola. If that happened, the South Africans would, willy-nilly, have to implement their undertaking on resolution 435 of the United Nations, which I am sure the House knows about. South Africa has said it will implement that resolution if the Cubans have withdrawn by 1 August. That would lead to the abolition of the present transitional Government and, until the elections took place, Namibia would be ruled by a South African director general and by a representative of the United Nations. There would be elections, perhaps a year later, supervised by the United Nations.
In general, the Namibian people believe that the United Nations supports SWAPO. Why should they? In 1973 the United Nations said that SWAPO was the
authentic representative of the Namibian people.
The House will know that it was the United Nations Assembly that said that and not the Security Council. However, such a distinction would pass unnoticed by the average Namibian voter. Secondly, the United Nations gives financial support only to SWAPO among the Namibian political parties. Thirdly, only SWAPO has the right to address the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly. Finally, only SWAPO has permanent observer status at the United Nations. Of course, United Nations observers would be neutral, but the result would be likely to be an overwhelming SWAPO victory and that would be due to the bandwagon effect often seen in Africa, because the Namibian voter would believe that SWAPO had the official backing of the United Nations and was therefore most likely to win. [Interruption.] If Opposition hon. Members will stop speaking for a moment perhaps other hon. Members might be able to hear what I am trying to say.
The implementation of resolution 435 would load the dice in favour of SWAPO. If UNITA is crushed and the Cubans go and if resolution 435 is implemented by South Africa by 1 August the elections that follow will he supervised by the United Nations. If the people of Namibia think that SWAPO is supported by the United Nations that would load the dice in favour of a SWAPO victory. An overwhelming SWAPO victory would not be in the best interests of Britain or of the people of Namibia.
Let me remind the House that in its 1976 political programme SWAPO said that it wanted to impose scientific Socialism, introduce the social ownership of all the resources of the country. and foster anti-imperialist international solidarity with Socialist countries. The Opposition may say that that is a good idea, but I do not, nor do I think it would be in our best interests.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman specifically wanted my attention. Is he saying that we should load the dice against an organisation in the unlikely event, at least in the short term, that there are free elections in that country? Are we going to choose who the new Government will be, or are we going to take a chance, as we did in the Zimbabwe settlement'?

Mr. Shelton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest. It is possible to have elections in which the dice are not loaded. I am sure that he would favour that just as much as I would. But if elections were held against the background that I have described, the dice would be loaded in favour of SWAPO. Like, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman, I should prefer to see free elections.
If UNITA survives, the Cubans will not be withdrawn, because the Angolan Government will need them in order to defend themselves against it. Consequently, resolution 435 will not be implemented, which will give the new Government time to put the constitution to a referendum, to implement their legislative programme, which I hope will gain support, and to call elections by the end of next year. There could be independent observers, perhaps from the Contact Group or the Common Market, and SWAPO could be invited to take part in the elections. So far, SWAPO has always refused — [Interruption.] I am afraid that the interest shown by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was very fleeting.

Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman needs a brief.

Mr. Shelton: On the contrary, it is the hon. Gentleman who needs a brief. If he listens to me instead of to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, he will get one.
If the transitional Government call elections before the end of next year and invite SWAPO to take part, SWAPO may well do so. Its base in Angola will be in some difficulty, because UNITA has not been crushed, and the Government may be achieving their programme in Namibia. Thus, SWAPO may take part in free independent elections. However, I very much doubt whether SWAPO will have an overwhelming victory.
So I say to the House and to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, who no doubt are paying much more attention than those on the Opposition Front Bench, that if resolution 435 stacks the dice in favour of SWAPO, which could then form a Marxist Government hostile to our interests, our own Government should reconsider our unquestioning support of it. That is especially so if there is on the horizon an alternative road to genuine independence, which is more likely to lead to democratic government.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has told me that resolution 435 is the only option with which everyone agrees. But that is not so. In Namibia SWAPO's supporters may total 30 or even 50 per cent., but in general terms, no one else supports that resolution. I should like to see equal recognition of all Namibian parties by the United Nations and an extension of equal rights to them all.
The United Nations should stop paying funds to only one party, which probably represents a minority, albeit a large minority. Our Government should do all that they can to get SWAPO to talk to the transitional Government. Lessons can be drawn for South Africa from events in that neighbouring country.
All the political parties, bar two, in Namibia, are co-operating with the white people, in order to move towards free elections and democratic government. That move forward does not spring from the men of violence. It is not SWAPO, but the moderate black peoples, through their political organisations, who have achieved that. Of course, they are accused of being puppets of South Africa. I do not believe that they are, but even if they were, it would not matter as long as they gained genuine freedom and democracy. Surely a peaceful process is better than a violent process.
That road forward must be right, and I urge the Government to support those endeavours.

Mr. Harry Cohen: A full-scale foreign affairs debate is almost as unlikely as a knighthood for Arthur Scargill. But this week we have had two opportunities, because there was a debate yesterday on South Africa and we now have this sprawling and wide-ranging debate. It is ridiculous that there should be inadequate opportunity for full-scale debates on individual international issues. I should like to contribute to a full-scale debate, for example, on arms control. Perhaps I should have said "the arms race", because there is precious little control at present. That is a subject on which the House has failed to make its voice clear. At the same time, the Prime Minister lamely defends virtually every act of the United States Administration in nuclear expansion.
We have not had a debate on the need for a chemical weapons ban, an issue which I raised yesterday in Defence questions and upon which the Government need full-scale chivvying if they are to show the will to come to an agreement.
I do not recall a full-scale debate on the middle east since the 1983 general election, despite the fundamental nature of the injustice and conflict in the area. It has a continuing potential to spread violence and to bring the world to the brink of war. I am one of the sponsors of early-day motion No. 948, which supports the
rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination within an independent sovereign state
and
recognises the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people
There is a need for a debate on Afghanistan. A few cursory references have been made to it during the debate but that is all. I visited Afghanistan recently. Indeed, I was the first western politician to meet the new leader, Dr. Majeeb. There is a need for an informed debate in the House on Afghanistan. Instead, in the Foreign Secretary's contribution, we had a succession of slurs and remarks of undiluted hostility. That is no way to create the conditions that will lead to the Russian troops leaving that country and enable Dr. Majeeb to emerge with his country from feudalism.
Those debates and my contribution to them will have to wait for future opportunities to arise. I wish to address my remarks to the crisis in South Africa, on which there was a debate yesterday. I make no apology for directing my contribution to South Africa despite yesterday's debate because there was not an opportunity for me to participate in that debate. The pressure must be maintained upon the Prime Minister and her Government

from inside and outside the House to end her deliberate intransigence, which so helps the current regime in South Africa. I understand that there will be a Cabinet meeting tomorrow, which means that this debate is a suitable occasion on which to point to the action that it is necessary to take.
British capitalism is the main support of apartheid. British companies are the main investors in South Africa. About 40 per cent. of direct investment comes from British companies, and that amounts to £5 billion. Over half the foreign companies operating in South Africa are controlled from the United Kingdom and British banks raised over a quarter of all the capital raised for South Africa. Barclays bank is one of the prime banking houses involved in South Africa. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), the SDP spokesman on economic affairs, is a paid adviser to Barclays bank.
It is the Conservative party, and especially the Prime Minister, which is the apologist for South Africa everywhere. It is the right hon. Lady and her Government who have been stonewalling and blocking sanctions at every opportunity in the Commonwealth, in the Common Market and at the United Nations. I have a copy of the memorandum that was presented to the Foreign Secretary today by the Anti-Apartheid Movement. It states:
Britain has lamentably performed the role of protecting South Africa from international action. As worldwide opposition to apartheid has mounted, Britain has chosen to play the prime role in developing and sustaining this evil system. For example, British oil companies arc the main suppliers of fuel to the apartheid war machine. British banks dominate the apartheid economy. British electronic companies equip much of the South African police and military and British chemical companies sustain its explosives industries.
What an indictment that is. The Government will not speak to the African National Congress but they disgustedly welcomed President Botha here in June 1984. They are prepared to sacrifice the Commonwealth in subservience to apartheid protectionist policy.
Let us dwell on how the Government have effectively put the boot into the Commonwealth. In October last year a Commonwealth accord was adopted at Nassau dealing with a mandatory arms embargo and economic measures. What is the Government's record on that accord in detail? One of the agreements in the accord was:
A readiness to take unilaterally what action might be possible to preclude the imports of Krugerrands
The Government waited seven months before they took any action on that score. That can be contrasted with the United States who took action within a few days of declaring its intention to do so. Another part of the accord stated:
No government funding for trade missions to South Africa, or for participating in exhibitions and fairs in South Africa".
The Leeds chamber of commerce visited South Africa with Government funding after the adoption of the accord. Trade with South Africa is encouraged by the United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association which enjoys the support of the British Overseas Trade Board. Government funds are still expended in the promotion of trade with South Africa through the presence of commercial attaches in the British embassy in South Africa.
Another agreement was:


A ban on the sale and export of computer equipment capabale of use by South African military forces, police or security forces".
Such computer equipment can still be exported without a licence from this country to South Africa. The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985 provides a massive loophole because it effectively removes control over the export of computers other than those specifically categorised in that order. Therefore, there is a great loophole of which the South African military can take advantage.
Another part of the accord provides for:
A ban on new contracts for the sale and export of nuclear goods, materials and technology to South Africa.
The British Government refuse to disclose information about the sale and export of nuclear goods. However, a formal agreement exists between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Corporation of South Africa. The agreement provides for access by South Africa to British nuclear technology and know-how.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Cohen: I shall give way when I finish dealing with the accord.
The accord also states that there should be
A ban on the sale and export of oil to South Africa".
No such ban exists. It also states:
A strict and rigorously controlled embargo on imports on arms and ammunition, military vehicles and para-military equipment from South Africa.
No
strict and rigorously controlled embargo
exists.
It also states that there should be
An embargo on all military cooperation with South Africa".
No such embargo exists. It goes on:
Discouragement of all cultural and scientific events except where these contribute towards the ending of apartheid or have no possible role in promoting it".
Britain is not enforcing that measure. Funds are still provided through the British Council for visits and activities in South Africa which are not to do with the ending of apartheid.
What a dismal record the Government have on the Nassau accord.

Mr. Winterton: I am not sure who prepared the hon. Gentleman's brief for this important debate, but is he aware that the United Kingdom has honoured the arms embargo against South Africa in a unique fashion, unlike most other countries and particularly France, which stepped in to supply arms when the United Kingdom introduced the embargo?
With regard to the nuclear situation, is the hon. Gentleman aware that Israel—a country that he often supports in the House—is probably responsible for providing the nuclear technology now possessed by South Africa?

Mr. Cohen: I condemn all countries which provide support, especially military support, to the apartheid regime. The hon. Gentleman referred to Britain's unique role in this matter. It is certainly unique because it is full of holes and has been breached in all the ways that I have described.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has often spoken of South Africa in glowing and admiring terms. His claim that Britain has adhered to the arms embargo is nonsense in view of the sale of

computer equipment, chemicals and other back-up technologies for the assistance of the police state in South Africa. In that respect, the British Government are defying their own embargo.

Mr. Cohen: I agree entirely. I cannot recall the full details, but in a case last year it was the trade unions who managed to prevent the export of military equipment to South Africa by stopping it at the port.
The Government have treated the Commonwealth in a disgraceful fashion and seem prepared to sacrifice it altogether. In the past, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke of sending a signal to the South African regime, but the only signal from the Conservative Government has been that they will appease and apologise for the South African regime at all times. There has certainly been no signal of any effective action to say that apartheid must end.
One of the reasons for that attitude is the Conservative party's ties with companies with investments in South Africa. More than 30 per cent. of donations to the Conservative party come from companies with assets in South Africa. Despite that, however, the Conservative party is split on this issue. On the one hand, there are the out-and-out racists who have crept into the party by the back door and those who have vested interests in South Africa.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Name them.

Mr. Cohen: It is clear from the Register of Members' Interests which Members go on trips paid for by the South African Government and are directors of companies with investments in South Africa.
On the other hand, some Conservatives rightly regard apartheid as morally abhorrent. Others fear Britain's isolation in the world. Others rightly regard support for the South African regime as had for business with black Africa arid in the long term with South Africa itself.
The racist regime in South Africa is a vicious and murderous regime. In the last state of emergency there were well over 1,000 deaths and it has started again on a large scale. We know from our television screens how the news blackout has been imposed, and the official propaganda is blatant lies.

Mr. Corbyn: On the first day of the news black out—Soweto day — a whole congregation was arrested in church, but that could not be reported by any of the international press there. Is it not incumbent on all Western countries which maintain relations with South Africa to take on the role of telling people what is happening in Soweto and other townships in the hands of the South African military?

Mr. Cohen: I agree with that comment. Conservative Members who hear their hon. Friends supporting and justifying a Government who arrest a whole church congregation must surely think twice about having such people as party colleagues. Part of the nonsense we hear is that black is killing black. The main violence is carried out by the security forces of the regime and by the vigilantes who have been set up, sponsored and supported by it. Then there is the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and the harassment of Winnie Mandela and countless others who are struggling for freedom.
The regime also exports its apartheid to Namibia. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just.


made a speech about that, but he did not tell the House that more than 100,000 South African-controlled troops are in illegal occupation of that country and that the transitional Government is a puppet of South Africa. No wonder that Government do not have control over foreign affairs and other issues; SWAPO is the legitimate voice of the people.
The South African regime is also a threat to the whole region, as the attacks on the three neighbouring capitals during the visit of the Eminent Persons Group showed. Direct raids, destabilisation and subversion of neighbouring countries has cost billions of pounds and thousands of lives. Yet the British Government defend that regime.
The Government's excuses for not imposing sanctions are feeble. The first main excuse is the argument about jobs in Britain being at risk. What crocodile tears. The Government have not cared about jobs in this country during their seven years in office. They ignore also the opportunity for expanding trade with independent black Africa and the jobs that that would create. They ignore too the prospects for the security of those assets and investments and for trade with South Africa which will be so important for jobs when the inevitable change to black majority rule occurs. If we are frozen out then because Britain supported the racists, the prospects for jobs in Britain will be much worse.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement memorandum summarised the argument on jobs:
At best it reflects a failure to grasp the dimensions of the crisis now facing Southern Africa and the possible consequences and costs for human life. At worst, they are a cynical justification for maintaining existing trade and investment patterns and the profits which flow from them. Those profits are from racist and murderous oppression.
That is a very good summary.
The second main argument of the Government against the imposition of effective sanctions is that they will hurt the blacks. They should tell that to the families of the blacks who have already been murdered. The blacks want sanctions so much that they are imposing them themselves via strikes and boycotts. When Sam Nujoma, the president of SWAPO, addressed a Labour party meeting here he summed up the argument succinctly. He said that the Africans are a dispossessed people and that sanctions hurt the whites, not the blacks. The front-line states have been prepared to make substantial sacrifices to impose sanctions.
Let me give Bishop Tutu the last word on the erroneous and phoney argument of the Government about sanctions hurting the blacks. In a statement today he said:
I cannot accept Mrs. Thatcher's argument that South Africa's black people would suffer most if sanctions were applied. Blacks are suffering now. We have prayed. We have pleaded for decades with the western Governments in the name of humanity to help end apartheid. Instead we keep being reminded of reforms. We do not want the chains around our necks to he loosened. We want them removed. Apartheid must be dismantled. Our suffering must end. If we do not have sanctions soon then Heaven help us. If sanctions are not applied soon then the future will be catastrophic.
We should support those who argue for sanctions and those who are struggling for change with effective sanctions now.
We should take up the Anti-Apartheid Movement's call to break off diplomatic relations with the South African

regime. We should support those who are fighting for a non-racist, democratic, majority rule South Africa. That will happen anyway. We should be supporting it, not because it is inevitable but because it is right.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Before he became hysterical and beside himself with plastic indignation, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a good point. It is often made and seldom reacted to by the usual channels. It is that we do not have enough foreign affairs debates. I believe that more hon. Members would be present if we had more debates on specific foreign affairs topics. If the hon. Member for Leyton had confined himself to making sensible points such as that, we could all have applauded his speech.
A little before him, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made what I think all of us would regard as startling and horrific revelations about the alleged activities of President Waldheim. They would shock us all, and further investigation is obviously vital. The Government must respond positively. I hope that there will not be any in this House who think that such revelations should be swept under the carpet because bygones should remain bygones. If the generation that has been born since the Nazi atrocities should ever be protected from such knowledge, is it not that much more likely that those atrocities could happen again?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a wise and witty speech. It was witty in that the so-called dead sheep actually did savage the bruiser from Leeds. It was wise because it is wise for the Government to undertake no new initiatives in the middle east. Although they pay lip service to the Venice declaration, I am pleased that it now seems to be dead. Although they pay no lip service to Camp David, it sounds as though the Camp David agreement is being allowed to revive.
My right hon. and learned Friend's speech was wise because he spoke of the importance of the Atlantic Alliance, which is under strain, not least as a result of the behaviour of our friends who appear to have rewarded our brand of loyalty to them in a rather less than responsive way.
There is also the wisdom of our commitment to improvement of the world food supply to famine-prone nations. I am delighted to see that the Government Front Bench is now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who has done much to help guide British foreign policy in Europe and in the Commonwealth to provide a better distribution of food supplues and resources that will help peasant farmers to provide more food of higher quality themselves. Many of my constituents and others will welcome the accolade of an award for Bob Geldof for the wonderful work that he has done to alert all of us to the pressing needs of the African sub-continent.
It was a wise speech because it referred to the need for nuclear strength as the strongest bastion of world peace and to human rights as the strongest bastion there is of a humane and happy society.
There is sanity from the Government over economic sanctions. I have been here for all the speeches, and it is ridiculous for some hon. Members to sound off as though in our resistence of economic sanctions we are demanding something that is contrary to the interests of the black majority in South Africa. To relieve our own feelings of


guilt and the emotional hatred of apartheid which we all have, we are being pressed to cause economic collapse, because that is the object of the exercise. If we take away the jobs that are now being filled by 1 million or 2 million blacks in South Africa, they will go on to the streets and will be driven by leaders into revolution. They will therefore spark off repression, and there will be infinitely more bloodshed, infinitely more quickly, than if by negotiation we try to sort out the mess and confusion of South Africa.
I am told that this is against the wishes of the blacks, but Labour Members have a terrible hang-up about going to South Africa and meeting South Africans. They should meet those people, because when the leader of 6 million Zulus says, "No sanctions," and when the leader of 4·5 million blacks Anglicans says, "No sanctions," we are indeed listening when we say that economic sanctions are not the best way of getting South Africa out of this problem.

Mr. George Robertson: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman makes such statements, perhaps he will check the facts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (M r. Anderson) are both going to South Africa next week with that precise purpose in mind. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, who is our spokesman on South Africa, spent nearly a fortnight there last year consulting precisely that opinion to ensure that the opinions that we hold are as authoritative as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He met a very narrow group of people—the UDF.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is a paid apologist and a Fascist.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made a remark from a sedentary position which I am sure he will want to withdraw. We ought not to allege lack of integrity and honour against any hon. Member.

Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw the second part of what I said. The hon. Gentleman is a paid apologist of the regime.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman accused me of being a Fascist. I ask him to withdraw. It is unjustified, and he says it without proof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must say that I did not hear that remark.

Mr. Foulkes: I withdrew that remark, but sustained my remark about the hon. Gentleman being a paid apologist of the apartheid regime.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am certainly not a paid apologist. If the hon. Gentleman can prove that I have received any money from the South African Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley again knows that that is an allegation of dishonour against an hon. Member that is not allowed, and he must withdraw it.

Mr. Foulkes: If you insist, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I withdraw.

Mr. Lawrence: I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would repeat that outside the House so that I could offer my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) legal assistance, for which I would be paid.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And I would accept.

Mr. Lawrence: Having praised the Government, I must also say that there are one or two inconsistent features of our policy. If we are determined, as the Foreign Secretary said we were—and I am sure we are—to take a stand against terrorism and violence, which we would all applaud — and to that extent we sent packing two representatives of the PLO who refused to renounce violence—why then do we call for the release of Nelson Mandela before he renounces terrorism and violence? That is an inconsistency.
On a less violent and more ideological level, the determination to enhance Britain's reputation and to foster adherence to principles of democracy and freedom under the law, which we all embrace and would like to see advanced, clashes somewhat with our reluctance to spend adequately on teaching overseas students in this country and bringing our system of education and the British way of life more closely into their lives. I sometimes think that the same is true of our reluctance to fund BBC overseas services properly, which would do more than anything to spread abroad the good name of Britain's democracy and our way of life and rule of law.
Perhaps I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that a famous refusenik—I am sure he will not mind my naming him—Victor Brailovsky in Moscow told me that he thought the reason why the Soviet Union did not jam the BBC overseas services in English was that the authorities had some respect for the quality of the broadcasts, which were balanced, and contrasted with some of the other English language broadcasts from other nations, which will remain nameless. That is my tour d'horizon.
I now turn to the central issue of both Front-Bench speeches — United Kingdom-Soviet relations. Soviet leaders listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and to a lesser extent to speeches of other Opposition Members, will have reason to pat themselves on the back for having taken in some important Members of Parliament. Obviously, Mr. Gorbachev is a new leader with a more presentable arid attractive face, and so has his wife. Surely it is far too premature to conclude on that evidence that this is a new Soviet Union with a new approach to the United States and Western Europe?
Hon. Members should ask themselves some questions. Would Mr. Gorbachev have come so far so quickly if he had not had the backing of the old guard, which means that he was endorsing their policies? Is there any reason to think that the international department of the Supreme Soviet, which inspired the invasion of Afghanistan, has changed its attitudes or policies? Does not the appointment of a Soviet Foreign Minister with little experience of foreign affairs—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East used that fact in support of his argument—mean that foreign policy is more likely, not less likely, to


be guided by party officials—the apparatchiks? When we have weak leadership, Ministers or councillors, who takes power? It is the civil servants and local government officials. Is there any reason to think that the KGB or the GRU are to be wound down, or that subversion will be any less in the world than it has been in the past? What evidence is there that the Soviet Union has changed its ideological and opportunistic spots? It has not withdrawn from Afghanistan. It has not stopped banning Russian-speaking broadcasts. It has not improved the free flow of ideas. It has not done much to improve trade between our nations, and it has not made any noticeable concessions on human rights.
As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee stated in paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of its third report on United Kingdom-Soviet relations, which was published at the end of May:
No one who has had direct discussions with contemporary Soviet leaders can fail to have observed their implacable ideological opposition to Western capitalism, their attribution to the United States and its allies of responsibility for the current causes of international tension, their belief (though declining) in capitalism's 'inevitable' demise, and their professed faith in the inevitable victory of world socialism…
There was no sign of a shift away from these fundamental, ideologically-based perspectives in Mr. Gorbachev's recent report to the 27th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, nor could such a shift be expected.
To conclude that the Russian bear after Mr. Gorbachev's accession is a different animal, or that the fresh mind referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is necessarily a different mind, is wishful thinking of the kind in which the right hon. Gentleman usually indulges to great excess.
Lest I sound despairing, I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I am not. It is quite clear that a change of attitude is emerging in the Soviet Union from which the world could benefit. It is important to appreciate that we are dealing with a new position. We should not be deluded into thinking that we are dealing with a different adversary.
The change of attitude has come about because the Soviet Union is desperately anxious for nuclear disarmament. I think that all hon. Members welcome that and agree with it. The main reason for that change is that the Soviet Union has now to face the problem of a total lack of resources in the face of the strategic defence initiative. The problems facing the Soviet Union are many. It has difficulty feeding itself. It has difficulty running its economy efficiently. It has difficulty, in a world of mass communication, keeping its consumers happy. Its consumers will shortly, if they do not already, be able to see more clearly on their television screens the pleasures enjoyed by citizens of other countries. The Soviet Union has difficulty funding its satellite countries.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee recently visited Vietnam. It was clear to us that the Russians have put a limit on the amount of money that they are able to pour into Vietnam and the army in Kampuchea. I think that that is why a date of 1990 has been set for their withdrawal, although that seems to me to be contrary to what one would expect to happen in the far east. If the Russians do not withdraw in 1990, there will be a loss of face.
The Soviets have difficulty funding Cuba, Central America, and all their activities throughout the world.

They have difficulties within their own empire. One of those is the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which is beginning to worry them greatly. They have problems of defence against China, ideologically as well as militarily, on their borders. They have difficulty controlling the far-flung provinces of the Soviet Union. Vladivostok is almost a million miles away from Moscow. One can see, when the Soviets have to deal with the leaders of those countries, how difficult it is for them to exercise control.
I do not know whether the stories from Chernobyl are true. Stories are coming out of Chernobyl that the extent of the medical disaster is more considerable than we would like to think. If that is so, the Soviet Union will shortly be trying, throughout the world, to gain access to medical equipment and supplies which it cannot provide.
As a result of all those problems and the strain on the resources of the Soviet Union, the new man with the new look has come in. He visited the United Kingdom in November 1984 as the guest of the IPU and the Select Committee. He came with his Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee of this Parliament and the IPU visited the Soviet Union. The Soviet Foreign Affairs Committee is, we hope, to visit Britain again. The Soviet Foreign Minister is coming here in July. There is a greater exchange between the Soviet Union and Britain. I have no reason to think that the same thing is not happening with other countries.
The Soviets are wooing the United Kingdom in particular. That is not just because they have a certain admiration for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which I think was manifest to us when we were in the Soviet Union. They have a certain respect for the prompt action that we took in the Falklands. They think that we are capable of putting a restraining hand on the United States of America. They hope that they can drive a wedge between the Atlantic Alliance and either Britain or Europe and stop the United States developing the strategic defence initiative. They are afraid of matching the expense of that programme. I cannot help but feel that those in Britain who press strongly for the reversal of that programme and for Britain to stop its support of it are playing the Soviet game.
In the face of such an objective, we should be strengthening the Atlantic Alliance, not weakening it, and backing the strategic defence initiative, not trying to kill it. When we were in Russia, it was clear that the Supreme Soviet was paranoid about SDI—as paranoid as some of those hon. Members who have spoken against SDI. If that is a fair assessment, that feeling provides the best hope of bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, which it did, and keeping it there, which it is doing. We hope that the Soviet Union will come forward with more genuine, meaningful, and acceptable proposals for nuclear and conventional arms reductions. The card of the SDI is a strong one in Western hands.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not deeply regret President Reagan's decision to abandon the latest SALT negotiations? Will he confirm that, in recent years, there has been no occasion on which the Soviet Union has walked away from negotiations? The Gorbachev plan is to enhance negotiations rather than to walk away from them. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not do better addressing his remarks to President Reagan?

Mr. Lawrence: The United States did walk away in Geneva. It was showing a more solid face against the negotiating procedures in a number of other fora than we have seen since the SDI was launched. I agree with the Government's view, which, strangely enough, is shared by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), that we should try to persuade the United States to think again about its proposals on the SALT relationship.
Human rights — the release of Soviet Jewry, the honouring of religious freedom for Christians, Jews and those of any other religious sect and cultural freedom—are important to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said to Mr. Gorbachev that the human rights issue was not a laughing matter because for us in the West it was important for its own sake. That point has been endorsed by a number of hon. Members.
But it is even more important than that. The Soviet attitude to human rights is an indication of how much we can trust the Soviet Union in a world in which the absence of trust is what separates the West from the East. If the Soviet Union fails to honour its undertakings to its own people, how reliable are its undertakings to other people? Paragraph 6·11 of the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs states:
We would add that whoever those commitments may benefit, the fact that an internationally binding agreement, given in the glare of world publicity, fails to be honoured, can only undermine confidence that subsequent internationally binding undertakings may not meet the same fate. Lack of progress on human rights therefore remains a serious obstacle to public perceptions of the Soviet Union and its reliability and integrity. That is why the honouring of such an international undertaking as the Helsinki Accord is considered by other governments to be so important a test of the likely reliability of the Soviet Union in any other international undertakings which it may seek to make, particularly on arms control.
The message that we have to get across to Mr. Gorbachev is that if the Russians want us to trust them when they promise to enter into binding undertakings on arms control, they must first honour their international binding obligations on human rights. When they do that, we can trust them and we shall be a united House in rejoicing when that end is achieved.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I associate myself with what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said about cuts in the BBC overseas service. The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was important, and many gentile Members would like to know about past British Governments and military personnel.
I shall concentrate on one subject. It is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to as serious deceit over Libyan bombing, particularly that shown to European colleagues. This is a live issue. The "World in Action" programme on Monday, done by Ray Fitzwalter, David Mills and Eammon O'Connor, was a remarkable programme that posed questions that have to be answered. The programme said:
As more terrorism threatens, some Americans argue the whole crisis is unnecessary and has been manufactured by President Reagan…Some prominent Americans believe the Reagan Administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism and deliberately forced a confrontation with Gadaffi.
Rear-Admiral Eugene Carroll, admittedly one of the critics of the Administration, said:

This has been very adroitly done. We have made Gadaffi an enemy, a symbol of terrorism.
The programme continued:
Tonight some of President Reagan's own advisers admit that the attack on Libya had less to do with terrorism and more to do with reversing years of humiliation that began with Vietnam.
A clip was then shown of President Reagan, and the commentary said:
In 1981 these past humiliations swept President Reagan to power. He promised things would be different in future.
The programme continued:
The obvious targets were either Syria or Iran…both had been deeply involved in many terrorist attacks on America.
But both have powerful defences and are close to the Soviet Union.
So the Americans turned instead to Gadaffi and Libya, a country with a tiny army and population half that of London.
It then showed a clip of Gadaffi and said:
Gadaffi was chosen not so much for organising terror but for taunting America. He became the perfect target for President Reagan.
Mr. Jenkins, an adviser to the Reagan Administration, then said:
you know the United States is brought up on stories that have good guys and had guys…heroes and villains.
The programme then showed a clip of President Reagan saying:
We have evidence which links Libyan agents or surrogates to at least twenty-five incidents.
The programme said:
Despite the rhetoric, incidents last year like this hijacking of a TWA jet were never proven to be directly linked to Gadaffi.
Nor was the tragedy of the Achille Lauro.
Dr. Kupperman then said:
The whole notion of bringing thirty capital ships well before we attacked Libya…to bait them, to cross this ridiculous line of death…our intention was to bait them 
The programme then went on to comment about the next incident:
That came in April with the bombing of this West Berlin disco and the death of an American GI. As with some of the earlier incidents there is now evidence that Syria rather than Libya was primarily responsible.
On 12 June, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister asking her
what information Her Majesty's Government received from the German authorities both before and after the decision by Her Majesty's Government to grant approval for the use of United Kingdom bases for the United States attack on Libya, regarding the evidence available to the relevant authorities in Germany of any alleged involvement by Libya in the recent bombing of a nightclub in Berlin.
The Prime Minister replied:
We have kept closely in touch with the German authorities on this matter. There is clear evidence that Libya was involved in the bombing of La Belle discotheque in Berlin on 5 April."—[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.287.]
It is about time that this clear evidence was produced, because some of us have been deeply unhappy, from an early stage, about the whole episode.
I go back to 14 April. For the sake of time, I shall refer only to column 579 of the Official Report for 14 April 1986. On a point of order, I regretted that the private notice question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East—this was before the bombing—was never granted. Although I believe that Mr. Speaker's motives were wholly honourable—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Dalyell: No, not until I have finished my sentence.
It was deemed a great pity that the private notice question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was not granted, as the obvious question about the use of British bases would have been asked. The House of Commons would then have had some input into events and the bombing of Tripoli before they took place rather than simply holding a post mortem. I now give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is it not a fact that on that unfortunate Monday when the House was not allowed to express its views about the impending attack on Libya the Foriegn Office was apparently prepared to make a statement, that it was overruled by No. 10 and that, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker felt unable to allow questions on the matter? The significance is that, had the House uttered on that day, the Prime Minister's exercise in allowing the Americans to use bases in Britain might have been a little more difficult to project as something that was acceptable to the British public.

Mr. Dalyell: I have no proof of that. I am extremely careful to say what I know and what I guess to be the truth. I guess that to be the truth. My only comment is that when the House of Commons is in any way deprived of its say, it is not to the advantage of our country.
However, I suppose that one can understand the Prime Minister's decision not to reveal the use of British bases before an attack. What the House of Commons desires to know is to what extent the Prime Minister's senior colleagues were consulted. For example, the Secretary of State for Defence said on Radio Ayr:
Something has got to be done. I think that my colleagues and I are very dubious as to whether a military strike is the best way of doing this. It is liable to hit the wrong people, it creates other tensions in the area. There are a lot of other things that can he done which my colleagues are certainly looking at very hard—further withdrawals of permission for diplomats from offending countries, action like reducing trade and reducing contacts of one sort or another, with those who refuse to outlaw terrorism.
Those are not the words of a man who expected this action to take place.
I refer to Malcolm Spaven's chapter in Pluto's quickly produced hook "Mad Dogs". On the permission to use F111is and tanker aircraft from British bases, he said that British military forces were also involved and that
The Ministry of Defence admitted on 17 April that RAF Nimrods at St. Mawgan, and possibly Gibraltar, were put on standby to provide search and rescue cover for the F-111s returning from the raid.
If that is true, at least the Secretary of State for Defence
should surely have known about it. I quote again from "Mad Dogs". Mr. Spaven said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr.Callaghan) told the House on 17 April 1986:
it 'never occurred to anyone' when US bombers arrived in the UK in 1950 that these aircraft would be used for non-NATO purposes.
So much for the Secretary of State for Defence. I ask, when was the Foreign Secretary consulted? Was it after or was it before anything could usefully be done to act on the considered advice of the Foreign Office? The Foreign Secretary said:
No evidence emerged during the discussion that any Foreign Minister was aware during the meeting of a final

American decision to attack. For my part, I had no confirmation of any decision by the President. still less of any decision to authorise raids that night, until I came back to London and met the Prime Minister."—[Official Report, 16 April 1986; Vol 95, c. 950.]
These questions are not simply Opposition mischief-making. In his remarkable speech in the other place on 18 April, Field Marshal Lord Carver recalled at column 894 that the Prime Minister had said that discussions with the President covered a week. The Field Marshal asked Lady Young to tell the House who was consulted and who agreed. To date, the Field Marshal's questions have gone unanswered. The House of Commons deserves an answer.
The House of Commons is also entitled to press the Prime Minister as to her real motives for agreeing to the use of British bases. On 15 April, in answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Prime Minister said:
That was a factor in the decision to use our bases and why those aircraft were especially right for the action that was undertaken.
The hon. Member for Thanet has asked:
Was she influenced not only by loyalty to an ally with a just cause, but by a much more practical consideration: that fewer risks were likely to be caused to Libyan civilians and to United States military personnel if the United States used the much more precise equipment, the F111, rather than carrier-based aircraft?
To my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), the Prime Minister replied:
the F111s were required because they are more accurate on particular targets"—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 726.]

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Foreign Affairs

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Dalyell: Yet from the Pentagon come very different reasons. First, the attack on Libya provided a proving ground for weapons. US News and World Report carries an article by William Broyles, Junior, on 12 May 1986, on the politics of war, in which he writes:
The budget, in short, is the mission. 'It all comes back to the budget', says one ex-Pentagon analyst. For years we've been saying that radar, infra red and smart bombs are the way to go. We've spent billions on night-mission avionics, so we had to try to use them, even if a daylight strike would have been better.
Equally bluntly, Aviation Week of 21 April asserted that the attack on Libya:
provided a good proving ground for the F111s to be flown into the Mediterranean, and gave the Air Force a chance to demonstrate its capabilities.
A raid of this kind was deemed to have great value in the presentation to Congress of the case for greater spending on the United States Navy and Air Force. But it was not a reason given by our Prime Minister to our House of Commons.
Secondly, there was inter-service rivalry between the United States Navy and Air Force. As a senior official of the Pentagon artlessly put it to Aviation Week, page 19, 21 April:


Understandably, after the all-Navy action in Libya last month, the Air Force wanted a piece of the action.
Again, that was not a reason given by our Prime Minister to our House of Commons for the use of territory in Britain as a base for non-NATO operations.
I refer again to Spaven, page 23, who says:
Libya has large numbers of Soviet-built weapons; engaging them in limited combat would give US forces experience in employing electronic countermeasures and untested new weapons, and assessing the performance of Soviet weaponry.
Thirdly, there has been the formidable lobby in the Pentagon which has been championing the idea of joint service operations, particularly the land-based aircraft in support of naval operations. When the joint chiefs of staff sat down in December 1985 to consider the military options against Libya, Admiral James Watkins, and others—Watkins was chief of naval operations—saw a useful opportunity for a joint naval-air force operation to demonstrate the value of their concept to doubters in Congress and the Pentagon. Again, that was not a reason hinted at by our Prime Minister to our House of Commons.
We are dealing with what is referred to as the best all-weather precision aircraft in the world. Spaven said:
The main night-attack capability on US Navy aircraft carriers is the A-6E. in 1984, US Secretary of the Navy John Lehman described this aircraft as 'the best all-weather precision bomber in the world'".
Why could not they do the job? Why could it not be done by the Coral Sea or the United States sixth fleet? It is simply not true that the bomb-aiming equipment of the F111s was superior to the bomb-aiming equipment of the carrier-borne A-7s. They both had the same TRAM system, or its equivalent.
Fourthly, and possibly most important of all from the point of view of the House of Commons, whereas certainly the internal politics of the United States military were an important reason for the attacks on Libya, the nature and timing of the raid had much wider political implications.
I quote from the April 1986 issue of Sanity. On page 18, Dan Pleasch asked Rear-Admiral Carroll of the Center for Defence Information in Washington:
In your experience, would it have been practical to use the F111s, and ask the British afterwards?
Rear-Admiral Carroll replied:
That was the basis on which the plan was prepared.
The implications are chilling. A major reason for including the F111s in the operation was to tie in Britain as one European country seen to be supporting the United States. Again, this was not a reason that the Prime Minister offered to the House.
On 3 June I put to the Prime Minister a question about the characteristics of the F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom which rendered their use essential for the United States' attack on Libya. The Prime Minister replied:
The F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom provided the best equipped means of carrying out the United States operation against specific terrorist targets in Libya, with the lowest possible risk of Libyan civilian and United States service casualties. As the United States has indicated, the F111 possesses advanced avionics and other capabilities which made it particularly suitable for such a mission.
I then asked the Prime Minister to:
name the senior American, or Americans, who told her that the F111s were more precise than the carrier-based aircraft.
The Prime Minister replied:
That was the advice that we received both from across the Atlantic and from home."—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 730–1.]

When pressed on that occasion and later by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) the Prime Minister becomes uncharacteristically vague about the question of what she was told by the Americans. In The Scotsman Martin Dowle asserts that President Reagan did not talk personally to the Prime Minister in the week before the Libyan raid. What senior American speaking to our Prime Minister implied that the expensive carrier-borne A6s and A7s were so inferior to the F111s that they could not carry out the Libyan mission? Any American who said that would have been asked some awkward questions by the United States Navy and by United States taxpayers back in Washington. I ask the Prime Minister to let us know who exactly did tell her, if anyone did, about the F111s being more precise, avoiding collateral damage, and cutting down civilian casualties? The Prime Minister has got to the stage where she will invent any cock and hull story that will get her out of a jam.
On page 63 of Aviation Week of 2 June we read:
In the Libyan Raid the 6th Fleet Commander was given the time frame to attack, and he had the responsibility of putting it all together,
The implication is that it was the sixth fleet commander, down in the Mediterranean, who planned and organised the raid, and for that reason the House should be told how the Prime Minister could possible know how the raid would be conducted. The sixth fleet commander had full responsibility. Command and. control of the operation was given to the on-scene commander. How does the Prime Minister make out that she had any kind of a British veto?
The Minister may switch ground, and claim, as the Prime Minister claimed, in answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, South on 15 April when she said:
We were also influenced by the fact that the United States has hundreds of thousands of forces in Europe to defend the liberty of Europe. In that capacity they have been subject to terrorist attack."—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 726]
If this is a reference to the bombing in West Berlin. Could the House of Commons be told why the Bundeskriminalamt, the Federal Police in West Germany, have even now refused to confirm the Libyan connection and why Herr Lochte, the chief of the Verfassungschutz, the bureau for the protection of the constitution, has said that he excludes any Libyan connection, and why the German intelligence, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, differs substantially for the Americans about the interpretation of Libyan messages?
The Parliamentary Questions that I put down for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office have got me nowhere and the answers are misleading. For example, on 3 June the Under-Secretary replied:
No. Berlin is not part of the Federal Republic of Germany and is not governed by it. The allies, who have supreme authority in Berlin, remain in close touch with the German authorities in the city. [Official Report, 3 June 1986, Vol. 98, c. 414.]
I ask the Government to be a little more candid about the advice that they are receiving from Germany about the connectionss between the tragedy in West Berlin and Libya. Before someone launches an attack on Benghazi or Tripoli, he had better be very clear about the basis for doing so.
I am no admirer of Mr. Botha, but he was quite justified in drawing comparisons between what our Prime Minister and President Reagan did, and the attacks so universally deplored on Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana. It is not just the Prime Minister's critics who think along those


lines. Ferdinand Mount, writing in the Spectator—not exactly the house journal of the Labour party—on 24
May 1986, says on page 6:
For the comparison does throw a fascinating if rather eerie light on our confused and conradictory attitudes towards terrorism and the response to terrorism. The two raids are as nearly alike as any two events in an untidy world. The Governments of Zambia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe may not sponsor terrorism in quite the same way as Colonel Gaddafi does; but the distinction is not a crucial one.
But what is crucial is the whole question of the control of operations. I shall refer briefly once again to the excellent case deployed by Michael Spaven in the book entitled "Mad Dogs". I shall quote three extracts. The first states:
What Mrs. Thatcher's words do not indicate is whether there are any circumstances in which Alliance solidarity would not operate, making refusal possible. Nor do they give any indication of whether such a refusal would be accepted by the United States; in other words, whether Britain actually has the power to control the activities of US military forces stationed here.
The second extract states:
Early in 1986, Mrs. Thatcher could say only that she `would expect to be informed, when US nuclear forces in Britain were placed on alert.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this important point. Will he confirm that under the 1953 war plan made by the then United States President Eisenhower, when the United States considers itself to be

in a state of war or readiness for war, it does not necessarily consult any of its western European allies before attacking a third country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) resumes his speech I remind the House that five Back-Bench speeches have lasted for more than 20 minutes. The debate started late, and some hon. Members who have sat in the Chamber throughout the debate will not have an opportunity to speak unless hon. Members speak briefly.

Mr. Dalyell: I reply to my hon. Friend by saying that the Foreign Secretary said that
it is not a question of a publishable agreement".
Mr. Spaven adds:
Nor is there any way in which the British air traffic control authorities could stop US aircraft from taking off; they have no right to question the purpose of US military flights, which in any case are under no obligation to file flight plans with the authorities unless they are intending to fly through what is termed `controlled airspace'.
Finally, Mr. Spaven says:
The danger is that the US will not sign any deal on control of its bases which does not contain a get-out clause of that sort — which would bring a future British government right back to the square one of 'joint decision in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time'.
That is a real problem for the Alliance. However, in view of the time factor, I shall leave it at that. Nevertheless, the question of controls is a very important issue. I ask for a considered reply by letter.

Foreign Affairs

Mr. David Atkinson: The theme throughout yesterday's debate was political and human rights in one country, South Africa. This evening, as well as referring to the situation in South Africa, I shall discuss our approach to human rights generally.
There is no doubt that Britain, perhaps more than any other country, stands for the maintenance of freedom. One can argue that the House is a symbol of that freedom, as was certainly the case during the last war. In every country, without exception that I have visited since 1979, the reputation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stood as high as Churchill's ever did in support of freedom.

Mr. Foulkes: Come off it.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously never been abroad, or, if he has, he has not listened to what people say.
There is no doubt that the denial of human rights remains the major obstacle to world peace and security, and to trust and confidence between nations. As the world knows, we as a nation have always accepted a major responsibility in attempting to make the international treaties and institutions concerned with human rights succeed, and one such is the Helsinki Final Act. There have been many times when I have questioned the continuation of the Helsinki process because of the continued failure of the Soviet Union and its allies to implement the provisions which they have approved and supported, but I accept that we must persevere.
The Helsinki process provides too valuable an opportunity for violations by participating states to be raised. It keeps them in the dock of world opinion and enables us to raise specific outrages, such as the current persecution of the Turkish ethnic minority in Bulgaria. That issue was raised at Ottawa last year, but the fate of the Turkish minority has not, in my view, been sufficiently appreciated by the free world, with the result that Bulgaria continues to force its Turkish citizens—about 10 per cent. of the population—to change their names, to close their schools, and to abandon their language and customs.
All this is highlighted in a report of the Council of Europe last year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply, for raising this matter in Sofia last month. I look forward to his comments later.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman condemns the persecution that is taking place in Bulgaria, but will he condemn the Turkish Government for their denial of the liberty and identity of Kurdish people within the national boundaries of Turkey?

Mr. Atkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the attitude of the present democratically elected Turkish Government with that of their predecessors, when there was no democracy. Instead, there was chaos and anarchy and the military Government took over the running of the country to try to put matters right and to restore democracy to Turkey.
The Helsinki process enables the cases of individuals to be raised. These include those who are harassed or discriminated against, persecuted or imprisoned for

courageously compaigning in their own countries for rights and freedoms which we take for granted. These include Rostislav Evdokimov, who is serving five years' imprisonment and five years internal exile for campaigning for free trade unions in the Soviet Union, and Father Gleb Yakunin, who is serving seven years' imprisonment and seven years internal exile for advocating the end of state control of religion. I had the privilege of meeting both these people in Leningrad and Moscow when I was gathering material as the Council of Europe's rapporteur on these matters.
I pay tribute to the work of Amnesty International, which is now 25 years old, and to other organisations, such as Christian Solidarity International, of which I am the United Kingdom president. I must say, however, that I continue to be disappointed that we as Members of Parliament receive so little lobbying on behalf of people such as those to whom I have referred from our own free trade unions and from our churches. In my view, they are put to shame by the Jewish communities in Britain, who so frequently and efficiently supply Members with the facts about refusniks. I was pleased when I heard that their cause was presented to Mr. Gorbachev by members of the recent IPU delegation to the Soviet Union.
As we know, such perseverance pays off. Shcharansky, Solzhenitzyn, Bukovski, Ginsberg, the Siberian Seven, Georgie Vins and more recently Father Calcui from Romania, and others are all living proof of that. They are now enjoying freedom in the West. Worldwide campaigns on their behalf made them an embarrassment to the Kremlin, and so they were released. But so many remain. These include Sakharov, Irina Ratushinskaya, the Russian Catholic poetess whose state of health is giving so much cause for concern, and Valeri Barinov, the rock gospel singer, who are others known to us. We must raise their case at every opportunity, not so much for them to be released to the West, because they do not want to come to it. They wish merely to be able to go home and to see an end to persecution. There are many thousands more whose names we do not know.
We should most certainly consider the withdrawal of any support that we might give by the way of aid to those countries where we learn that their citizens are being persecuted for being Christian or Jewish, for example, as is the position in Nepal at present. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary knows this as a result of my fact-finding visit earlier this year and from his visit later in February. As a policy of human rights that is not enough.
We know from our own experience and that of the 35 countries which enjoy the same freedoms as we do that it is democracy which represents the best guarantee of human rights and the best protection for minorities. Moreover, it remains the best force for peace. In recent times, I doubt whether a democratically elected Argentina would have occupied the Falklands or whether a democratically elected Soviet Union would have invaded Afghanistan. We need no reminding that two world wars were started by dictatorships and won by democracies.
The central theme running through British foreign policy should be the promotion of democracy to those 100 or so remaining countries which are neither democratic nor Communist. They must understand that they must make a choice before a choice is made for them. Unfortunately, that is a battle of ideas which democracy is not winning. More countries have had Communism


foisted upon them since the last war than have opted for democracy. That has partially been because for too long democracy has been on the defensive. We have been too negative in advocating it for others. We have been too apologetic in defending our own colonial past, which has left behind throughout the world parliamentary systems and freedom under the law which we had attempted to introduce in good faith. In so doing, we sowed the seeds of freedom which led to independence. That is a record to be proud of and which we should defend at every opportunity in the United Nations and elsewhere. I wonder whether we do that enough.
I accept that we should not assume that parliamentary systems which work in our countries will always survive being foisted upon others. Our European systems have taken centuries to evolve. In most of black Africa, pluralism has already reverted to tribalism and we have to accept that. What we cannot accept is the end to the independent judiciary and the dismantling of those constitutional restraints on arbitrary power which guarantee human rights for all people. That is the true test of a free society.
The alternative is a regime where there is no justice because the judiciary and legislature are one, usually one party. Regrettably, that appears to be the direction in which Zimbabwe is now moving and that is the situation which already applies to almost one third of the states which make up the Commonwealth. In my view, it ill behoves the Commonwealth to seek to destroy the economy of one of its former members, South Africa, when millions of its own citizens enjoy far fewer rights and freedoms than South Africa's black citizens do.
I want to record my opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa, not just for all the good reasons given to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary but for one other very good reason. Either we apply sanctions against all the regimes we object to or we do not apply any at all. If we are not prepared to take meaningful action against the Soviet Union for continuing to occupy Afghanistan or for applying far worse apartheid against Christians, Jews and others within its own country, we should forget any further economic sanctions against South Africa.
In my view, we should not underestimate the effect of what is already happening in South Africa — the damaged economy, the pressure for change from business, the effect of the present violence, the political reforms already undertaken, the negotiations going on behind the scenes with black leaders and the whole experience of the Eminent Persons Group
Even though the Nationalist Government may not admit to being shaken by those factors, I believe that they will be influenced by them and that further reforms will be forthcoming. South Africa needs a period of calm to work things out for itself. The Eminent Persons Group, the Community and the Commonwealth have not been helpful in suggesting how reforms should be implemented—reforms which will guarantee the protection of all 14 groups which make up South African society—bearing in mind that every group in South Africa constitutes a minority.
We in the West should continue to make our good offices available for that process to succeed, with the promise of aid if necessary. President Reagan's National

Endowment for Democracy for leadership training, education and the strengthening of democratic institutions could also be applicable here. What we must not do is to contribute further to an economic desert with even higher unemployment in South Africa and in neighbouring states, which will serve only to encourage anarchy and civil war. That wouuld accord exactly with the highest expectations of the Kremlin.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity. The first Front Bench spokesman is hoping to catch my eye at 11 o'clock, so further restraint is needed.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, welcome this debate on foreign affairs, although it is difficult to concentrate on a particular part of the world when other hon. Members understandably wish to cover other issues. I welcome the fact that there is now far greater public interest in foreign affairs debates than there has been for many years. I believe that that interest is occasioned partly by the actions of the Government and the opposition of so many people to those actions.
We had a full debate on the problems of southern Africa yesterday, so I shall not repeat those arguments, save to say that the issue of sanctions against South Africa has activated and united more people in this country in the past few months than, tragically, in the 26 years since Sharpeville and the consignment to prison of Nelson Mandela and others. I hope that we shall soon see the release of those people and a genuine democratic majority Government in South Africa, because until then there will be bloodshed, poverty and hunger in South Africa.
I have here a copy of the United Nations report on the adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of political, economic and other forms of assistance given to the racist and colonial regime in South Africa. The report lists the international companies which have been and still are trading with South Africa and making a great deal of money out of it. There are also 42 pages of British firms, listing their military, economic and financial interests in southern Africa. I believe that that is why the House yesterday rejected the opportunity to impose economic sanctions against South Africa, although I believe that the time will come when this country will become party to an economic embargo against South Africa.
I wish today to deal with issues other than South Africa, because the atmosphere surrounding international affairs has changed a great deal in the past few months. When American planes took off from British bases for their bombing raid on Libya, we received a large number of letters from constituents complaining of the danger to this country following the use of those bases and the attack on defenceless people in Tripoli. I quote one typical example. My constituent, Ms. Jane Rollason, writes:
I write simply to register my horror at Mrs. Thatcher's action on 15 April in allowing Reagan to launch his attack on Tripoli from British bases. Her arrogance in endangering the lives of British people at home and particularly in Libya is quite incredible, and she has surely made a considerable contribution to the escalation of terrorist activity throughout Europe.
She goes on to applaud the response of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and concludes:
roll on the day when we are no longer led by a Reagan acolyte, should we be fortunate enough to live that long.
That is typical of the view expressed by many people.


There has been much analysis, particularly by my lion. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), of the motives behind the use of British bases for the attack on Libya. Clearly there was no military need to use British bases, but it was pushed by the United States military high command to prove that those bases could be used and that they could fly F111 aircraft around the coast of Europe to bomb Libya. Aviation Week, which my hon. Friend mentioned, analysed this well and pointed out that the attack on Libya was partly a proving ground for the ability of the F111s to fly to Libya without going over the European mainland, to deliver their bomb loads and to return to this country.
We must remember that the motive behind all this and behind so much of British foreign policy has been a furious hatred, promulgated by the Government through the media, of the Soviet Union and of everything that the Soviet Union does. It is also motivated by a slavish following of everything that the United States does. We do not have an independent foreign policy, but a foreign policy that is essentially directed by the interests of the Government and of the military establishment of the United States.
Not so long ago, when this country did not consider itself to be half at war with the Soviet Union, Britain and the Soviet Union considered that they had many mutual interests and many British soldiers died fighting Nazi-ism, as did many more Soviet soldiers. What I complain about is the way in which we are constantly fed a diet of pro-American propaganda from the Government, through the newspapers, and a diet of anti-Soviet propaganda.
The influence of the United States on our foreign policy leads us into the most extraordinary positions. It has led us into NATO and into supporting United States policy in many places. We supported the raid on Libya solely because of our subservience to the United States. We are supporting the United States' attempt to destroy the democratic and independent Government of the people of Nicaragua for exactly the same reason. We have stood by and allowed the people of Chile to be trodden underfoot because we are dominated by the interests of the United States.
Central America is the classic example of poor countries trying to drag themselves out of the cycle of poverty, debt and deprivation by their own communal activities and by the development of a collectivist economy. Because such an economy is seen as a threat to the interests of United States multinationals, the United States has imposed sanctions against Nicaragua and the British Government have followed suit. There are many other examples in other parts of the world where we have dragged ourselves wrongly into the United States foreign policy domain because of our links with the United States.
More recently there have been huge demonstrations throughout western Europe and throughout this country against the siting of cruise and Trident missiles, the effect that such siting has had on national defence policies and the cost being imposed on European defence budgets. We are members of NATO, which controls about 90 per cent. of our armed forces. It has an enormous bearing on our defence expenditure. When hon. Members talk about democracy, they should remember that half the decisions relating to our defence expenditure are made, not in Whitehall, in the British Cabinet or in the House of Commons, but in the NATO Council of Ministers, which in turn takes its advice from the high command and the

generals who have consistently argued for a higher and higher level of national defence spending by NATO members. That threat to democracy concerns me greatly.
When NATO was set up in 1948, the commander of the United States air force who arrived in Britain with the advance guard of the American forces to be stationed here said:
Never before in history has one first-class power gone into another first-class power's country without any agreement. We were just told to come over and 'We shall he pleased to have you'.
Since that time the growth of American bases in this country and the effect of those bases on our national life has got worse and worse.
There are now 21 United States bases, 150 F111 aircraft and some 50,000 members of American forces here. Hiroshima could happen dozens of times over with the nuclear weaponry that is based in Britain. That is why I seriously call into question a defence strategy which relies solely on the interests of the United States, which drags us into a military alliance which is not defensive but aggressive, which controls the national budgets of so many countries and which imposes nuclear weapons on every country in western Europe, in almost all of which there has been mammoth opposition to the siting of those weapons. That opposition will continue and grow.
Although the Spanish people undeniably voted to remain in the North Atlantic Alliance in the referendum, they were denied a vote on NATO membership. There was never a referendum on that, as the wording of the ballot papers concerned the nebulous subject of the North Atlantic Alliance rather than NATO membership. I believe that the opposition to NATO membership in Spain would be repeated in many other countries if people were given the opportunity to say so. The long-term future of NATO is in serious doubt. I hope that, in the long run, NATO and other military alliances will be broken up, because they destroy national economic interests and pose the danger of a further world war.
I have mentioned the effect of United States influence on us and its control of our armed forces. Our massive defence expenditure is a direct result of NATO membership. Because we are so tied to United States foreign policy, we are also tied to the United States in all other spheres of international relations. Thinking is centred on Europe or on North America. Because of that, we tend to shut our eyes to what is going on in the rest of the world. We tend to shut our eyes to the growing impoverishment of the rest of the world because of the Atlantic-centric, Eurocentric view. We put our hands in our pockets to give overseas aid, while bleeding the poorest countries of the world dry through debt repayments and low commodity prices.
War on Want was founded by hon. Members and others in 1951 because they recognised the poverty that was occurring in immediately post-colonial countries and the danger of a new form of colonialism through lack of development. It recently published a booklet entitled, "Profits out of Poverty?" in which it describes the debt burden as a percentage of exports in several Latin American countries. Latin American countries are not the only ones with such problems. Argentina's debts amount to $50 billion, and debt repayments represent 80 per cent. of exports. That is the highest, but other countries are in serious difficulties.
The booklet also describes the involvement of British banks in the debt burden of Latin American and other countries. It mentions the exposure of big British banks to the big debtors. For example, 84 per cent. of the National Westminster bank's notional capital is tied up in debts in Latin America. The same is true for 202 per cent. of the notional capital of Lloyd's bank and for 274 per cent. of the Midland bank's notional capital. All those banks have registered record and growing profits.
Many Third world countries are asked to borrow money against the sale of commodities to finance development. Neither commodity prices nor debt interest payments are in their control, so the loans do not benefit the Third world countries. Rather, by a process of low commodity prices and high interest rates, western European and North American banks have been subsidised by the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world—to the tune of $25 billion a year from Latin America alone.
Many other examples could be quoted. I merely refer to the publication that has recently been issued by the Third World Foundation, which also produces the well-respected "South" magazine, which chronicles the debt burden of sub-Saharan Africa. This is an area that has been debated many times in the House, and many people have correctly and generously given large amounts of their own money and resources to try to overcome the terrible problems of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
Frankly, the debt burden is enormous. It has grown from $18·6 billion in 1975 to $88·1 billion in 1984. As a proportion to export earnings, it was 120 per cent. in 1975 and it is now 230·9 per cent. That absolutely crippling burden is being placed on the people of sub-Saharan Africa and similarly on Latin America. It is hardly surprising that there is a political process of opposition to this debt burden from those who demand a moratorium on debt repayments and a limit on debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of export earnings.
Because the American Administration realised the danger to their own supporters and banks, the Baker plan was put forward as a solution, but that plan does not provide an adequate solution, because it suggests more lending and a different form of economic development in those countries. The poorest people in the poorest countries of the world are fed up with being told how to run their economies and to reduce public expenditure in order to increase export earnings in order to increase their own poverty to assuage the appetites of the big banks. Unless the British and other Governments face this problem, there will he collapses of major banks and serious problems for the Third world countries.
In December 1985 the International Currency Review produced a report on the problems of commodity prices. It includes an index in which 1980 is taken as 100. For all commodities, the figure in 1970 was 34·8 and by 1985 it had reached 70·1. However, in real terms the price of coffee has fallen from 100 in 1980 to 79·6 now. and sugar has fallen from 100 to 14·8—a massive reduction in earnings for these key crops and commodities that are produced by these countries.
When Band Aid, Sport Aid, Live Aid and similar campaigns are mounted, many people rightly take part and give money, but they are also calling for a change in

an economic system and relationship that automatically impoverishes so much of the rest of the world. That is the campaign that we are mounting.
I hope that in future debates on overseas aid and world poverty we shall look seriously at the problems of commodity prices and impoverishment of the Third world. If we do not, and if we become obsessed with the cost of the militaristic fervour imposed on us by the United States, we shall be turning our backs on the poorest people in the poorest countries and on the prospect of economic regeneration for them and ourselves.
In the future, I look forward to a British foreign policy which is genuinely independent, which is not dominated by the military and financial interests of western Europe and the United States, and which is genuinely part of an international effort to eliminate poverty throughout the world.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to cover three topics, but I shall cut my remarks as much as possible in view of the time. I shall speak first about the position in South Africa; secondly, about the deterioration in Soviet-United States relations and the role of Britain and Europe; and, thirdly, the implications for our aid budget of the debt crisis in Africa.
I hope that the House, if not the press, will forgive me for continuing yesterday's debate, and therefore yesterday's news, on the future of South Africa. As The Daily Telegraph accurately observed, I did not vote against the motion proposed by the Opposition which called for "effective economic measures" compared with the Government's motion calling for "effective measures". I am grateful for the opportunity to explain and, perhaps, convince others of, my position.
As I see it, we believe that the internal policies of another sovereign independent state offend against our belief in natural justice, and deprive the majority of its citizens of the normal human rights of freedom, justice before the law, to be consulted and make representations on policies which effect their everyday life, to own property, and not to be discriminated against on the grounds of race, colour or creed. The black population of South Africa are denied many other matters against which I rail and which deeply offend the Conservative party and the House.
In the past we would have taken up arms against such a state, as we did at the beginning of the century in the Boer war and later against Nazi Germany in the name of freedom and justice, and as the north of the United States did in different circumstances against the south in the American civil war. In many ways the motivations then and now are similar.
No one is suggesting that we overthrow the South African regime by force or even use a United Nations force to do so, although in the past we would have done so and this House would have agreed to do so. Given that that is so and we are not prepared to use outside force, we must use the tools that Wilberforce used in his crusade to end slavery—the tools of argument, persuasion and patience, reinforced by economic forces, many of which are already at work in South Africa, and the moral condemnation of our nation and churches. There is no other course available to us.
We must take up the task of persuading the South African Government and the electorate who support them


—it is important to remember that they are responsive to a limited white electorate—that it is in their interests to change their policy. Let us be clear that we are asking them to share power with the black majority, so we must analyse the political and economic factors which are most likely to affect that white electorate in influencing that white Government.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that there is a growing willingness within the electorate to consider making progress in that direction. The Eminent Persons Group recognised that when it stated that it believed that public opinion in South Africa, which is reasonably unfettered, is ahead of the Government in that respect. The Nationalist Government also have a Right-wing constituency which forbids and bans any progress in that direction. That probably explains why the Government are working behind public opinion.
If that analysis is correct, we must encourage those in government and opposition to combine together to begin the process of freeing Nelson Mandela and opening a dialogue with all sections of the black community. If we were to adopt mandatory economic sanctions which would impoverish and punish the black community still further, we would encourage the forces of revolution and combine the white electorate against making progress towards a political settlement with the black community.
I agree with and support the Government's view, put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My only disagreement is that they must be prepared to consider all options, even those of an economic character, if we are to identify the measures which will reinforce the determination of those in government and in opposition and of the wider electorate in South Africa to open negotiations without preconditions, but on the understanding that violence will be discouraged by both sides.
The identification of such measures must be given urgent and detailed consideration and they must be decided on at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in consultation with the United States and the European Economic Community, with special reference to West Germany, Holland, Japan and the United Nations. Although we must maintain and enforce diplomatic pressure where possible, experience has shown that such pressure has made only limited and too-slow progress. I believe that the most effective form of pressure — as the right hon. Lady the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and her co-authors of the report accepted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in April said—can be exercised by the South African private sector and by those who have invested their money in South Africa.
The lack of confidence in South Africa has already resulted in a dramatic fall in the rand and there is a disinvestment programme. Such action affects the value of property owned by white South Africans and results in a loss of income enjoyed by white people who have a vote and the ability to influence Government policy. We must draw the private sector into Government discussions, led in this country by Sir Leslie Smith, a former chairman of the British Oxygen Company, with the American, German, French and Italian private sectors, to hammer out policies which will have the most effective influence on the South African Government and encourage them to change course.

I hope that the Government will leave no stone unturned, including measures of an economic nature, in their determination to find measures which will encourage and enable, politically, the South African Government to alter their policies so that the South African economy can grow and prosper and thereby make the massive investment in black African housing, health and education which is badly needed to redress the balance which is the heritage of the years of apartheid and racial government.
The Soviet Union's relations with this country and the United States have been well covered during the debate. We should not forget, in our enthusiasm, to take advantage of what I believe is a window of opportunity offered by the accession of Mr. Gorbachev to the secretaryship of the Communist party in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We must not forget that the Soviet Union has not abandoned its expansionist policies outside the boundaries of the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan has been mentioned. I add to that the commanding position that the Russians have gained in south-east Asia by their support of the Vietnam regime and their domination and use of Cam Ran Bay and Da Nang which are massive installations—built, ironically, by the Americans—and which enable them to threathen, by their expanded navy and air force, the northern parts of Australia and the whole or the south Pacific basin. It is not just a threat. The Russians are operating in the islands of the south Pacific. They are doing the same seduction job that they did in Grenada.
The Russians are responsible for finding the money for Vietnam to occupy Kampuchea and for maintaining the wretched regime in that country. Soviet expansionism can be seen in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua and Europe.
If there is to be an easement of tension between the Soviet Union and the West, we must build up trust. The Soviet Union must begin to show that it is willing to enter into such discussions and to reduce tension if we are to make progress on the serious issues of nuclear and conventional disarmament.
Africa's debt problems are residual problems which will affect the world well after the time when the debt problems of the larger countries have been settled or at least a means of living with them has been found. The World Bank estimates that, by 1990, all African countries presently in debt will be much further in debt. One can see no way of solving that problem, except by increasing concessional flows through aid budgets to those countries. The Government will have to deal with the replenishment of the International Development Association and the World Bank in the next two or three months.
I understand your impatience, Mr. Speaker, because. I, too, have been sitting listening to this debate for two days. I should like to make this point. It is essential for the Government to recognise the necessity of ensuring that Britain plays its part in expanding the resources—properly focused on economic development—which will enable those countries to begin to pay back what they owe, pay their interest, and produce an economy that will enable them to provide a better standard of living and to avoid starvation.
Without further ceremony, and thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me and the House for listening to me, I shall sit down.

Mr. John Browne: In the few minutes available to me I should like to talk about South Africa. I am completely opposed to apartheid, but, like most people in this country, I do not think that that implies that I am anti-South African.
Obviously, the situation is complex and time is running out. In fact, after my visit there, I would say that the time has already passed for a peaceful, internally generated solution to the problem facing the South Africans. In short, South Africa needs help. Two countries can offer some help—the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which have large economic and political interests in South Africa—for example militarily and with respect to raw materials. In a way, they have a historic as well as a present responsibility to work towards a peaceful solution.
I should like in the closing minutes of the debate humbly to offer one solution that should be considered seriously by the United States and the United Kingdom. President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should at least get together specifically to talk about the problem facing South Africa. It is not just a South African problem, but a free world one.
President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should call a meeting between themselves and State President Botha at which they should face him with the reality of the threat that faces South Africa and the West, outline their plans and offer incentives for working and co-operating. They will have to offer the stick, which basically is not sanctions—I wholly disapprove of them, for the reasons outlined in the debate—but disinvestment which would disproportionately hit white employment as opposed to black employment.
This should be the plan. A conference should be called by the South African Government and sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom as the honest brokers. I believe that they are second to none in the world as brokers for peace. That conference, which should comprise the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister, should be chaired by the South African State President. The 15 or more parties who represent the various interest groups in South Africa should be called to the conference. The South African Government should negotiate away all the vestiges of apartheid, save the vote and the constitution. The parts of apartheid that would be destroyed would then have been negotiated with the moderate blacks and moderate leaders from all parties that turned up at the conference. The ANC might resist going to this first conference because it might not renounce violence.
There should then be a pause during which the dissolution of apartheid should be put into legislative form to convince people to create the necessary credibility. A second conference should then be called to discuss South Africa's future constitution. Even the ANC could do nothing other than attend, and would perhaps be forced to eschew violence to qualify to attend. The second conference, in discussing the constitution, would discuss voting. We are not after giving one man, one vote once, but one man, one vote for ever after. We have to design a constitution that will allay the fears inherent in South Africa, and felt by many more than whites, of being swamped by the majority.
A solution might be along the lines of that found by the Swiss many years ago when they were faced with people of three different nations and four different languages, all fighting. The big fear was that when they combined, the German-speaking majority would run the country. Their solution was based on the canton system — keeping power all the way down the ladder at the lowest, canton, level and not at the national level. The national Government of Switzerland have only two powers. One is their control over the currency, and the second is their power to make war or peace on behalf of the country.
In South Africa, there are already in place about 360 magistrates districts, each about the size of the smaller Swiss cantons. A canton solution could work in South Africa if it were well studied, and if people had a wish to make it work. Switzerland is not the same as South Africa, but it has similar problems. All the people in the western world who have interests in South Africa and all the blacks and whites there have as an overriding interest peace, and finding a peaceful solution.
I shall not take any more time from the speech of the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, upon which I know that I am encroaching. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Reagan will talk over this solution because if it worked, it would bring something valuable to South Africa — a peace that would allay the fears of the minorities and protect them, and would offer one person one vote, and often.

Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) for curtailing his speech. I know that some hon. Members have had to exercise the self-denying ordinance requested by the Chair, despite the late hour at which the debate is being concluded.
There is no doubt that, across the wide range of subjects that have been discussed in the debate, what dominates world affairs in 1986 is the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. There have been many changes. In Washington we have had a new unilateralist style of foreign policy, with all the attendant electric shocks to NATO that go along with abandoning SALT 2, the raid on Libya, the deployment of chemical weapons and the gearing up of the strategic defence initiative planning has come in. In the Kremlin, a new leadership is promoting almost every week new initiatives and proposals, ranging from conventional troop cuts to test ban verification, even to the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the end of the century. Even without these new dimensions, the superpower relationship would dominate world events, as it has for the past 30 to 40 years.
The genuine difficulty that faces the non-superpowers in both the West and the East is to know how at a time of almost unique danger, when new breeds of weapons systems could open up vastly more dangerous scenarios, to assist the superpowers to live with each other, to talk to each other and to reach decisions together in this increasingly constricted world.
During the last two years there has been a transformation of our view of world problems. Whatever the ideological divide, which is still very deep, and whatever the potential for escalation and proliferation, which remains staggeringly great, both sides seem to be more willing than they have been for many years to talk


to each other and to compete for the command of world opinion rather than to rattle sabres and command military superiority. For that we must be grateful.
Last year's Reagan-Gorbachev summit was an enormous boost to the hope that agreement might be possible. The underlying relationship that was forged there seems to have prevented the worst of the misunderstandings that have characterised superpower relations in the last 15 years. It was good that this afternoon the Foreign Secretary was able to announce that the much-postponed visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister is to take place at an early date.
For many years the superpower dialogue on arms control has been bogged down in the capitals of Europe and we have grown used to inactivity. There were 13 years of mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna, and there have been endless years of talks at the disarmament conference in Geneva. None of them has produced concrete results. Now there appears to be a flicker of hope, as new suggestions are made and as old objections seem to be of less consequence. Slowly, in all the different forums in which these matters are discussed, there seems to be a spluttering into life of one sort or another. However, there is a proliferation problem. Because so many talks are taking place on so many subjects and on so many overlapping areas, the result is that, in such a complex area, fine words and sentiments from the top people take far too long to be translated into detail and to reach the negotiating table.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) told us this afternoon about their visit to the Soviet Union as members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. They underlined very clearly the fact that at the top of the negotiating ladder there are clear ideas about the direction in which the superpowers wish to go, but we have yet to see concrete results in terms of rhetoric and those fine intentions at the negotiating table. Indeed, the enthusiasm of Mr. Gorbachev for more and more initiatives has had the effect of confusing both the United States of America and his own negotiators. Both of them seem to be incapable of keeping track of his latest initiatives.
The new Soviet obsession with public relations and its desire, perhaps, to out-act the old actor in the White House tends to devalue the merit of some of the suggestions. For example, it was suggested after Chernobyl that there should be yet another summit. It was Mr. Gorbachev's third summit suggestion this year. The fact that agreement on the main summit meeting had not been reached meant that this suggestion looked like a diversionary gimmick. This impression was reinforced by the suggestion that this particular summit meeting should be held in Hiroshima. Glosses such as these detracted from the sensible points about co-operation on civil nuclear power that were made at the same time.
The shocks that were administered to us by the United States' raid on Libya and by its more recent decision to abondon SALT 2 betray a deep division among the allies and disarray in the United States and in the Administration of that country. As my right hon. Friend so ably said, it is not to be percieved as being anti-American to express a view in Britain that is being openly and in increasing volume expressed in the United States.
There is a crisis in the Atlantic Alliance and it is not neutralist or anti-American to note it and to regret it. The

crisis arises partly from the distance from the last war, whose ruinous tragedies hound together the NATO countries after it. Our electorates in the West are now, like myself and many other Members of the House, of the majority of our population who were born after the end of the second world war. There is, whether we like it or not, a declining interest in and consciousness of the seeds of that conflict and the adhesive that was invented in the late 1940s to prevent it happening, again.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made an impassioned speech thus evening about the election of Dr. Kurt Waldheim to the presidency of Austria. He made points which deserve answering, not just in the international context where President Waldheim will find himself, and possibly find himself profoundly uncomfortable, but about the British Government providing access to documents which should now be within the public domain but which apparently are being denied to us for reasons that cannot readily be understood. I hope that those Ministers who listened to his speech this evening, a speech of great power, will take on board the points that he made and will come forward with the answers which the House would expect.
I do not necessarily see the election of Dr. Waldheim, in a country which has more than due cause to be grateful for the post-war settlement, as a step into the past or a rejection of world criticism. It is perhaps a reflection of the same trends that we see in the West, of a rejection of the values and standards and memories of the second world war. Although we may regret the decision of the Austrian people, it was a decision taken within a democracy and is therefore one which we in the outside world will have to accept.
There is also a crisis in our Alliance because interests here have changed. The political activist in the West is more interested in world famine than in any possible Soviet invasion; more concerned about Chernobyl than the Krasnoyarsk phased array radar, and far more worked up about famine in Africa, which exists a plane journey away from all the wealth of our countries, than in the size of Russia's tank battalions.
Even in the Federal Republic of Germany a couple of weeks ago a respected opinion poll for a newspaper there showed that there was a greater measured concern in the population over the Chernobyl nuclear accident than there was in 1961 at the building of the Berlin wall.
Opinions, and values are changing, and recently the new American ambassador to Bonn expressed views about the possibility of the Americans going home and the reunification of the continent that would have been heresy had they been expressed only a few years ago.
There is also a crisis in the Alliance because of the behaviour, so often seen as inexplicable, and emotional and reckless, in our western European countries of the major and dominant partner in the Alliance, the United States. Indeed, as has been said by a number of hon. Members in the debate, there is a genuine concern about the way in which the present Administration of the United States conduct their foreign policy, which seems to fail to take into account the sincerely held views of their allies and supporters.
Anti-Americanism is rife in Europe and it is being fuelled by the Reagan administration's often open contempt for the opinion of its all too often—far too often in some cases—loyal allies. That must be a matter of concern for all of us who have had the good fortune to


grow up in a Europe mercifully spared the civil wars of almost every other previous generation. Before it is too late, we in western Europe must find new ingredients for the glue that keeps the Alliance together, to ensure that for the next 40 years it will be as successful in holding together our continent and its peoples as it has been for the last 40 years.
It is clear from the debate that superpower relationships dominate not only their own traditional spheres of influence. The waves of tension spread far beyond the areas of the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is outwith these areas that some of the worst dangers to peace exist for all of us. There is no doubt that the raid by the United States on Libya in April did much to fuel anti-Americanism within the NATO countries. The effect of what was seen by the allies of the United States as a provocative, disproportionate and questionable legal military adventure will be considerable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) articulated a view and asked again, with his usual skill, the uncomfortable questions for which he is now famous or notorious. I hope that the Government and Government hon. Members listened to him with great care, and that the Government will he able to provide the answers to his questions.
I was in East Berlin the day after that raid and with Mr. Gorbachev I was attending as an observer at the East German Communist party congress. Despite what the Americans did to Libya, few of the normally predictable reactions manifested themselves at that time. Of course, we had the expected rhetoric, but it was not overplayed.
East Berlin is known as a barometer of world tension. It is often said that if the temperature of the world goes up, Berlin reaches boiling point. The interest that day in East Berlin was less in world war 3 than in the 58-car cavalcade that Mr. Gorbachev used to visit the tourist sites of the city. Whatever the private anger at the Americans, and it must have been profound, the Soviet Union did not over-react, and instead of retaliation for an attack on a Soviet ally, Mr. Gorbachev used his East Berlin speech, delivered only two days after the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi, to make yet another proposal for arms control, this time on conventional troop reductions.
Some hon. Members make the point that instead of superpower relations being permanently confined to nuclear weapons, even though they are of supreme importance to us all, more progress in establishing the trust and understanding that is required for any long-term agreement between the superpowers might be accomplished by looking at other areas of common interest.
The middle east, with its instability and unpredictability and its potential for spilling over on to the world stage, is a headache for both the Soviet Union and the United States. It is the very instability and unpredictability of President Gaddafi that denied him greater Soviet support after the attack on Tripoli. That still prevents the Soviet Union from signing a defence agreement with the Libyans—an agreement for which there is considerable pressure. We should bear in mind that Mr. Gorbachev has scarely more affection for the schizophrenic colonel than has Washington.
Both the superpowers have influence and interest in the middle east, and their common interest is to see greater stability in the area. Soviet influence in Syria is not

decisive, but its military links give the Soviet Union some edge in influencing opinion. The United States does not pull the strings in Israel's Administration, but without the United States Israel would be very lonely in that part of the world. Both of the superpowers have worries and concerns, and both need to control and minimise them. Both know that no settlement in the middle east is possible without them both being involved, and both know that international security is not possible without a settlement in the middle east. It is, therefore, a tailor-made situation for genuine superpower co-operation, not just for the hell of it or as an experiment, but in their own naked self-interest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East mentioned the Gulf war, with all the mind boggling casualty figures that have been cited and the constant escalation. That is another area in which talks are necessary and could produce results. Why not a superpower dialogue on other hot spots in the world, so many of which have already been discussed by hon. Members — I think, for example, of South Africa, Central America, Angola, Kampuchea, or Afghanistan—or even on something that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, terrorism? That is a problem for both East and West, and there is a common interest. Or why not a dialogue on keeping the sea lanes open?
I have referred to areas of considerable danger and damage, which pose a much more potent threat to world peace than any possible invasions across the German plains. They could provide a much more fruitful prospect for building confidence between the two great powers. As the Foreign Affairs Committee said in the very important and thoughtful report published a couple of months ago entitled, "UK-Soviet Relations",
Perhaps the most constructive response which can be made by the individual countries of the west (and by the United Kingdom in particular) is to take seriously, and at face value, the Soviet leadership's new readiness to discuss issues of common concern and to seek Western cooperation in the resolution of these issues.
Those hon. Members who have just returned from Moscow, and those who, like me, were there earlier this year, would say that that was a very perceptive viewpoint, which could well be adopted by this Government, especially when the Soviet Foreign Minister comes to London in the near future.
Several other questions were raised by hon. Members, and I shall comment on some of them. I know that the House may have a considerable period of reflection on the issues relating to the EC, but the Foreign Secretary chose to raise the issue of Britain's imminent presidency. Just a small elite regularly attend EC debates. I often feel that we should be either certified or given a medal. But we have tried desperately hard during the past few years to get the Government to recognise the importance to both Britain and Europe of the unemployment afflicting this, and many other countries in the Community.
We have regularly failed to obtain any commitment, or even interest, from the Government, but I am glad to say that with only a couple of weeks to go before Britain takes over the presidency of the Community our arguments appear to have borne fruit. Last week, in The Hague, the Foreign Secretary said:
Unemployment is a scourge in all our countries. It is our greatest and most urgent challenge and one that can only be met with common policies and common determination.


At this late stage, it is nice to welcome the conversion of the Foreign Secretary and the Government to that view, and to the belief that that is the priority that should be at the forefront of the EC's deliberations, whoever happens to be in the chair.
It is profoundly depressing that we can expect the prescription for Europe to be the same miserable prescription that has been applied to the British economy. More of the same will become a Euro-Thatcherism that is laid on the table for the European Council. If that is what the new frontierless internal market is all about, it is an undistinguished contribution to solving Europe's undoubted and massive problems.
We must hope that in future there is more that the Government can do to rise to the challenge of a budget crisis in Europe and an uncontrollable agriculture policy with all the potential that exists in the 12 nations that make up the Community.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), in a speech that was otherwise entirely undistinguished, referred to an area of alternative diplomacy which is extremely important, especially in the context of the present preoccupation with South Africa. He congratulated the BBC external services in glowing terms, with which I concur. In the BBC external services we have a valued advert for Britain and the way in which we conduct debates. The external services need to be expanded and not contracted. Nowhere and at no time is this better illustrated than here at the present, where there is so much concern on both sides of the House about South Africa.
I note that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps that is because he is so unused to hearing any praise from me of any contribution that he has made to a debate in the Chamber. This is an ideal opportunity for the voice of Britain and for British public opinion to be turned on the Republic of South Africa. The broadcasting stations, for geographical and topographical reasons, beam an inadequate signal into South Africa, and now that that country has been sealed off from all opinions other than those officially stated by its Government, this is the ideal opportunity for us to beam our voice into it. I pay tribute to the BBC external services as the instrument and arm of Britain's diplomacy.
Similarly, I pay tribute to the British Council. I declare an interest, as I am vice-chairman of the council. I believe, however, that the work that is done by the council on behalf of Britain is something that we cannot repay in words alone. That work should be expanded and the council should be given resources to enable it to promote Britain as a whole.
This debate and world events in general have been dominated by East-West relations, and that is not surprising. In this context, however, the world is changing as both East and West adjust to the changing circumstances in which they find themselves. There is a genuine debate in the West, and we are right to cherish our right to be self-critical and to have a free voice in declaring opinions. But society is changing in the East and its populations will not for ever be content to be sold an incredible threat of possible western attack, or even to be dragooned by the rattle of Adolf Hitler's bones. There is a new climate in the East. There are demands for consumer goods. There is a desire on the part of the people to have their voice heard if growth is to be achieved. There is a need for prices and production to reflect demand.
Hungary and China tell us that, when people taste the flavour of being listened to, that taste is not easily removed from their palate. There is nothing soft, neutralist or appeasing in recognising the process of change that is taking place in eastern Europe. We can encourage it through dialogue and co-operation, and in the process loosen the chains of ideology and repression that we rightly condemn; or we can challenge the East militarily, with an increasingly suicidal armoury. In the process we would probably drive it hack into the past.
Members of the IPU delegation who visited the Soviet Union and who have spoken in the debate seem to have come home with one clear message — that the new leadership means business. And it was the Prime Minister who told us that we can do business with it. Why do we not rise to the challenge and call its bluff? From our position of strength and freedom in our voluntary alliance, we could make the great step forward to secure freedom for the next generation as well as its survival.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): This has been a wide-ranging and thought-provoking debate and I would like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the quality of their speeches. I have no time to comment on them all but I shall try to comment on as many as possible. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, many of those who took part in the recent IPU delegation have also spoken in the debate. It has, if anything, been something of a speech fest for them.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—I should like to join those who have thanked him for the part that he played in the delegation — my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are all members of the IPU delegation who have spoken in the debate. Clearly they had a stimulating, thought-provoking and worthwhile trip.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury spoke about his intervention on the question of human rights while he was in Moscow and that was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I propose to return to the important question of human rights, or their absence, in the Soviet Union.
I have thought before that the IPU reaches the parts that other envoys do not reach. That will be particularly true in the days and months ahead since I understand that the IPU is to hold its next annual conference in Buenos Aires. Where more appropriate than a foreign affairs debate to congratulate an English team on beating Paraguay in Mexico and what with the exciting football match next Sunday there will be plenty of opportunities for bilateral contact between us and Argentina in the near future.

Mr. Foulkes: We also shall support England on Sunday.

Mr. Renton: That is a very good tribute from the Scots. I am sorry that Scotland has not also moved on to the next stage of the world cup.


I should like to deal with a few free-standing matters raised during the debate. I shall deal first with Namibia. I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). The fact is that we, together with out contact group partners, the United States, Canada, France and Germany, consider that Security Council Resolution 435, which provides for free and fair elections for the people of Namibia, is still the best available basis for the independence of Namibia. It is the only internationally recognised plan for bringing about independence and it has been agreed by the South African Government. We believe that the best hope for progress is to press for implementation of that plan.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton—in eloquent words raised the question of President Waldheim. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, he has written to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal on this matter. I understand that he has raised a number of questions with the Ministry of Defence. He has apologised for the fact that he was not able to stay for the replies to the debate, but he said that he would read the record. Therefore, through the record I have to say that the Ministry of Defence's search of its records, which he requested, is still continuing. A matter as serious as that which he has raised, inevitably takes a long time to investigate and requires careful scrutiny. Therefore, I cannot comment further, other then to say that the Ministry's search of its records continues, and no doubt it will be in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as the search is finished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), who also apologised for his absence from the end of the debate, mentioned the Western European Union and the potential contribution that it could make to the development of a common European defence policy. As hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge, Europe must pull its weight in East-West affairs generally and in the Western defence effort in particular. The WEU helps in that process. The Government took a leading part in the reactivation of the WEU, and we regard it as a significant forum for European political contributions to security. We have endeavoured consistently to ensure that Foreign and Defence Ministers attend WEU meetings and Assembly sessions.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned the middle east. Anyone who is involved in the problems of the middle east at times reaches a sense of despair—of wondering whether a solution to the conflicts in the area will ever be achieved. But all of us would agree that the interested countries simply cannot walk away from the problems of the middle east. We must try to address the underlying problems, for stagnation in the middle east breeds despair, and that in turn encourages terrorism.
The balanced British approach to the Arab-Israel problem is unchanged. The 1980 Venice declaration remains the basis of our policy — the right of Palestinians to self-determination and of Israelis to security. The United Kingdom and the other EC countries are ready to help, but they cannot be a substitute for a regional initiative. I am glad that the Prime Minister's recent visit to Israel was welcomed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and by the hon. and learned

Member for Leicester, West. That visit demonstrated our ability to speak frankly to Palestinians and Israelis without causing offence, but it would be wrong—

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister said that the Prime Minister's visit did not cause offence. Can he explain why the Palestinian leaders who met the Prime Minister in the consulate in Jerusalem made it clear to her that the only organisation that they recognised as their representatives was the Palestine Liberation Organisation? But she still insists that another group might represent the Palestinians. Which other group does she believe could do that?

Mr. Renton: I shall deal with Palestinian representation, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that from all the records that I have seen it appears that the leading Palestinians who met the Prime Minister at the consul-general's house in Jerusalem believed it to be a satisfactory meeting and a good exchange of views.
We do not expect an early breakthrough in the Arab-Israel process. There are several reasons for that: first, the breakdown of King Hussein's efforts to co-ordinate his negotiating position with the PLO; secondly, the rotation of Government in Israel; and, thirdly, the United States mid-term elections. We shall do our best to continue, through quiet diplomacy, to encourage clear thinking. Yesterday, King Hussein had useful discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We recognise that Palestinian representation is a key issue. It is unrealistic for Israelis to hope for peace without talking to authentic Palestinian representatives. One makes peace with one's enemies, not with one's friends. It is equally unrealistic for Palestinians to expect to take part in negotiations unless they renounce violence and accept the Israeli right to a secure existence. Against that background we consider that it is up to the Palestinians to choose their own representatives.
During the Prime Minister's visit she focused attention particularly on the occupied territories. When I visited Gaza in December I was extremely depressed by the economic conditions in that part of the territories. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need for improvements in conditions there, but as a prelude to, not a substitution for, peace negotiations. We believe that the Palestinians should be allowed more freedom to run their own affairs, to engage in political activity and to develop the economy of the territories.
The other tragic conflict in the middle east is that between Iran and Iraq. We often tend to forget it because, rather like the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, it has been going on for so long—nearly six years. There is a tendency to overlook the fact that it is the most bloody armed conflict in the world with, we estimate, 500,000 killed so far. There is still stalemate at the front, particularly around the port of Fao that was occupied by the Iranians some months ago. Large numbers of men are being killed and maimed in continuing fighting. As many as 450,000 young Iranians reach draft age each year, thus giving the Iranians an ample supply of young men on which to continue to draw.
We are very concerned at the continuing suffering and the danger that the conflict poses for other states in the region, notably for the states in the northern part of the Gulf. The international community is now directly involved too. Attacks on neutral shipping in the first half


of 1986 were more than those for the whole of 1985. This conflict has seen the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, which we unreservedly condemn, together with other members of the Security Council. The use of chemical weapons in the conflict underlines the need for a global ban, to which I shall return.
Efforts must continue to seek a negotiated settlement. But the sad fact is that many mediators have in the past attempted to intervene but have not succeeded—Olof Palme, the representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, whom we shall always remember for the part that he tried to play in the peace process, the Gulf Co-operation Council, the Japanese, the Pakistanis, the Algerians, the Australians, to name only some. In my judgment the prospects remain bleak. Only the United Nations Secretary-General remains active. My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the conflict with him last month. He offers the best hope of progress in mediation between the parties and we support his efforts.

Mr. Dalyell: May I have a comment later or by letter on any factual inaccuracies in my speech, in Malcolm Spaven's chapter in the book "Mad Dogs" by Pluto Press, or in the "World in Action" programme on Colonel Gaddafi? If there is anything that the Foreign Office thinks is factually wrong, may we be told?

Mr. Renton: I do not think that it is appropriate for the Foreign Office to comment on factual inaccuracies in the book to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I regret that I was out of the Chamber for his speech, but even Ministers have occasionally to eat. I shall read his speech. If I see any factual inaccuracies of considerable importance in it I shall write to him about them.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Renton: No, I must continue because I have many points to make on other subjects
Anglo-American relations were raised in several speeches and particularly by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) who, in what I regarded as a bitter and misguided speech, referred to Britain's thraldom to the United States and to the sick culture of the United States. I am sorry that he is not in his seat. He was supported by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in a sad little speech. They gave a ridiculous portrayal of the United States. I must ask them which country opens its arms to take in refugees from all over the world? Which country still tries to follow the lines of the poem that are engraved on the Statue of Liberty which run:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'?
Which is the country that has taken so many more refugees from the Thai-Cambodian camps about which we are so worried? It is, of course, the United States, which has so far taken 365,000 Indo-Chinese refugees. France is next, with about one fifth of that number. Which is the country that gives comfort to Jewish refugees? Which is the country that is always opening its doors to those who are leaving the Soviet Union? Again, it is the United States.
I find it absolutely astonishing that Opposition Members, who get so lyrical in their defence of human rights and who write to me so frequently about Irina Ratsushinskaya, whose book of poetry I was sent in translation today—this sad, ill poetess is forbidden to

leave the USSR for the moment—turn so much of their venom on the United States without ever looking at the mote in the eye of the USSR.

Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has only to listen to the speeches that have been made today to learn how tragically true what I have said is.
Of course the Government have close contact with the United States Administration on a variety of world issues. I am glad that we do. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary saw Secretary Shultz on 22 May. He had useful talks, and they will be continued regularly at a high level. The United States Government listen to our views.

Mr. George Robertson: When?

Mr. Renton: That does not mean that they do what we say all of the time, but should we give up every opportunity to influence them? I can tell the hon. Gentleman when. The Camp David four points on SDI were agreed between the President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in December 1984. They have gained wide acceptance in the Alliance as fundamental elements in the approach to SDI. It is absurd to say that we follow the United States slavishly. Opposition Members who accuse my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister one moment of being a poodle and the next of being an iron lady, entrust her with a quality of metamorphosis of which even she, with all of her undoubted qualities, is not capable.
The greater part of the debate was taken up with arms control. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, in a thoughtful and sensible speech with much of which I agreed, said how important it is that we should work in every way we can to help to maintain the momentum of the talks that have started in Geneva. I entirely agree. We are not party to the Geneva talks between the United States and the Soviets on strategic arms and intermediate forces, but we attach the highest priority to them. We believe, however, that we should never sacrifice our long-term aims for short-term gains. The agreed aim of the talks is to work out effective agreements to prevent the arms race in space and to terminate it on earth, to limit and reduce nuclear arms and to strengthen strategic stability It is the Americans who have made most of the running to turn those objectives into reality by tabling concrete proposals in Geneva.
It was they who in November proposed a 50 per cent. reduction in nuclear weapons and in February a global elimination of all intermediate nuclear zones. These are radical proposals to achieve deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. If implemented, they would provide a basis for lessening East-West tensions.
But until very recently, these proposals of November and February have been without specific Soviet response. Finally, in the last few days—and my right hon. and learned Friend referred to these proposals — the Russians have come back with a specific counter-proposal strategic weapons to be limited by equal ceilings, 1,600 launchers on each side, nuclear warheads not to exceed 8,000, and separate negotiation on long range intermediate nuclear forces. They have also proposed a commitment to give at least 15 years' notice of withdrawal from the ABM treaty and to restrict work on SDI to laboratory research.
Full details are not yet available to us, and the detail is obviously of fundamental importance. But I agree with


the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when he described these proposals as important. They will require very careful study by the United States. I very much hope that they mark a shift away from the former negative Soviet approach and that they will bring closer the prospect of a balanced and fair agreement. Our initial reaction would be that there seems to be an element of flexibility and an opportunity for understanding in the proposals that the Soviets have now tabled.
Much has been said about chemical weapons. This Government are wholly committed to the aim of ridding the world of chemical weapons. We have tabled no fewer than six detailed papers for consideration at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. This is an issue on which NATO is wholly united. But we abandoned chemical weapons in the 1950s and the United States has since 1969 imposed a unilateral moratorium on their manufacture. In other words, there have been 17 years of unilateral restraints.
What matching restraint has there been from the Soviet Union? Its response has been relentlessly to build up stocks of chemical weapons—300,000 tonnes of nerve agents alone. I submit to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that that is an eloquent example of the failure of unilateralism, even the leap-frogging type of unilateralism to which he referred.

Mr. George Robertson: So the Government wish to do nothing?

Mr. Renton: We do want to do something.
The Soviet Union says that it wants a ban, so why has a ban not been agreed? The answer is simply verification. The only treaty worth having is one in which all sides have confidence. That means ensuring that there are adequate arrangements to prevent cheating.
Both the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster asked for details about progress on verification. Among the crucial issues remaining to be determined are how to check that civil chemicals are not diverted for chemical weapons purposes, how to check on non-production, and, most important of all, how to agree a stringent challenge inspection regime.
I welcomed the opportunity of discussing these matters today with Mr. Issraelyan, the chief Soviet negotiator at the chemical weapons talks in Geneva. I made it plain to him that we looked to the Soviet Union to show new flexibility in the negotiations if we are to believe that they are genuinely serious about a ban—if, in the words of the Prime Minister that have been frequently quoted, they are to show that Mr. Gorbachev is really a man with whom we can now do business.
Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Gulf has brought home sharply to all nations how accessible and terrible these weapons are. A comprehensive global ban must be agreed quickly to prevent proliferation. This dreadful genie must be put back in its bottle. Meanwhile the United States has decided to restore a deterrent capability if, and only if, negotiations on a global ban do not succeed between now and late 1987. This binary decision is not escalation, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East suggested, but an opportunity for negotiation of a total ban. The ball is in the Soviet court. It must decide whether negotiations can succeed. NATO has absolutely no wish to see the United States resume production of chemical

weapons if the better option, a negotiated ban, can be achieved. We have a negotiating window now of 18 months. A chemical weapons ban is needed by the West, the East and the whole world.
Three events of possible historic significance have already happened in 1986. The first is Chernobyl, to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred. It could be as important as Nagasaki or Hiroshima in changing perceptions about the future nuclear world. The second is the American strike on Libyan bases. It is now clear that the effect was to administer a sharp shock to Mr. Gaddafi and to serve notice on other countries which might have considered indulging in state inspired terrorism. Since then the Tokyo and Luxembourg meetings have put together packages of non-military measures to deal with international terrorism. We greatly hope that this will have a growing effect. The third event has been the oil surprise. It is devastating for the Soviets, the Libyans and some friendly states, such as Mexico, but it presents an opportunity for Western and world growth as good as a tax cut, and it must give added impetus to the international discussions on world debt. But none of those events is as significant as the talks on arms control and whether there is progress in those talks.

Mr. Healey: I asked the Minister to answer a specific question which was whether the answer given by the Secretary of State for Defence to questions on the Government's attitude to a comprehensive test ban and which contradicted itself in the same sentence represents a change in the Government's position? Or, are the Government prepared to seek a comprehensive test ban only if the verification problem can be solved?

Mr. Renton: As both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have said in answer to questions on a comprehensive test ban treaty, there has been no change in our position.
The issue of arms control talks will certainly affect us, our children and our grandchildren because it reflects the capacity of human beings to inflict on one another virtually infinite harm. It asks the question whether we collectively have the ability to rein in that capacity. There is no doubt that we in the West, while seeing the propaganda, the shallowness and the public relations value of so many Russian proposals, must test to the full whether there is ground in their proposals on which we can build the future hopes of mankind. Today we have had discussions with ambassador Issraelyan, and shortly my right hon. and learned Friend will have important discussions with Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze.
Yet, it is strange that while the issue of arms control is of such paramount importance, it is the issue on which our political opponents are at their most perverse. The Social Democrats and Liberals—[Interruption.] Indeed, where are they? They have given new meaning to the phrase dual track: one David going one way, the other David going the other. I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on nuclear deterrence, and I have no clearer idea of his policy now than I did previously.
As to the Labour party and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East with his recent lessons in arithmetic, I shall first correct the right hon. Gentleman on the cost of the necessary replacement for Polaris in the 1990s which he said would cost 40 per cent. of the equipment budget. It


will cost not 40 per cent. but an average of 3 per cent. of the total defence budget, and 6 per cent. of the equipment budget.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of Max Beerbohm's character the happy hypocrite who was, as Max Beerbohm said, rather like Caligula with a dash of Sir John Falstaff. Hypocrisy is a dangerous trait for those who wish to lead political parties, let alone countries.
The message is clear. The Conservative Government, and they alone, will pursue their path of careful negotiation with Moscow as a friend of the United States, and as a member of NATO and the European Community. Whenever it is appropriate, we shall do that independently and in our own right.

It being Twelve o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to order [18 June]

ESTIMATES

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the report [10th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Scottish Universities (Funding)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of universities in Scotland and students who will not have places in universities as a result of the University Grants Committee's decisions on funding. I take the opportunity to raise, on their behalf, some of the matters causing grave concern. I should like the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, in his response, to tell not only hon. Members but those who attend universities and those responsible for their adminstration what extra information the UGC used or called on. How did it calculate the resource factor when it decided on the funding of universities, especially those in Scotland?
I welcome the stand taken by the principal of Dundee university, Adam Neville, against the funding cuts by the UGC. In the face of a wholesale attack on universities by the Government, the principal of Dundee has at last spoken out against the Government's policies. He is determined that there will be no redundancies in academic and non-academic staff. He is determined to hold on to all kinds of disciplines. He sees Dundee university as part of the city and part of the region. The university needs their support just as they need the university.
In the local press recently, the principal called for a long-term funding strategy to safeguard the future of universities. He reminded the Government that universities are long-term providers of graduates, research and co-operation with industry. He reminded the Government that to achieve that they need long-term support and enough money to operate and develop.
The UGC has recognised only the obvious areas of research excellence in Dundee — pharmacology, mathematics, biological sciences, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology, clinical medicine, psychology, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, law, and philosophy. Even though some of those were rated as outstanding by international standards, no extra funds are to be provided for research. Worse than that, in the UGC's rush, it has ignored many others. There are departments, research groups within departments and individuals with high national and international reputations who have been completely passed over.
Worse still, the UGC has looked only to the past and not to the future. Research assessments were based on work that had its origins five, 10 or even 15 years ago. The UGC has not recognised new developments, many of which are at Dundee. University research is about change, innovation and development. The UGC, with its blinkered vision—forced on it by the Government—failed to see the obvious. It claimed to have carried out a peer review. Many would suggest that it resembled an "end of the pier" review.
Dundee has a fine record of working with industry. That co-operation has gone on for many years. The traditional strengths are in medicine, science and engineering, but the university is now working on new areas — biotechnology, robotics and computer science. Recently, the university entered into an agreement with a major pharmaceutical company. It has set up two companies of its own to carry out clinical research and


produce diagnostic kits. At the local level, there is a range of consultancy and advisory work that is done by departments such as chemistry, physics, geology, civil engineering and psychology. There is tremendous potential at national and local level.
Dundee university also produces graduates. They leave with the benefits of a Scottish university education—four years of study in a broad range of subjects. They are not committed to courses that were selected too early in school. They can find out about new subjects and can change direction. They have a better chance of discovering their true potential. Students may specialise or follow combinations of subjects that are best suited to their future careers. In the arts and social science faculty that flexibility has been fine-tuned to achieve the maximum range from available resources. All come out with a far greater range of skills than when they went in.
The courses developed at Dundee produce those graduates that business and industry need. Derek Hornby, chairman of Rank Xerox (UK) Ltd., made that point at a conference on the role of arts and social science graduates in society held in Dundee last year. He said:
there was a pressing need in industry for specialized graduates such as electronics engineers, but that industry also needs good honours graduates, regardless of their discipline. These generalists who have flexibility, inquiring minds, and skills at communication have an advantage over specialists whose knowledge rapidly becomes obsolete.
The same message came from Bill Hughes, chairman of Grampian Holdings and the CBI Scotland Education and Training Committee. His advice to the universities was "You educate. We'll train." Fortunately, Dundee university has listened to that advice and its graduates' employment prospects are good. The university is high, and always has been, on the league table of graduate employment. It has listened to what business and industry have to say and has got it right. The UGC does not appear to have listened and has got it wrong.
Dundee university has made a point of being part of the region and the city by developing opportunities for continuing education and part-time degrees. The newly formed Centre for Continuing Education runs its extramural courses for more than 4,000 people. They offer a chance for those who have missed out in their education or who want to learn for the pleasure and fulfilment that comes from study. A recent development is the programme of vocational education aimed at local industry. With support from the Manpower Services Commission and the Scottish Development Agency, several schemes are under way, including one for training in languages with a large local company. There are part-time degrees, such as the master of education, which is a valuable conversion course for local teachers. An innovation is the part-time degree run by the faculty of arts and social sciences. In its first year, there were so many applications that people had to be turned away.
People in Dundee care about education, and the university is trying to make education more accessible. The Government believe, or say they do, in the value of retraining, but the UGC does not seem to have yet got the message or to understand. It is not giving enough support to vocational continuing education and severe cuts look inevitable. The Government and the UGC must accept

that continuing education in Scotland depends on home-based study. If courses in Dundee are cut, the students cannot go elsewhere.
All these achievements at Dundee have been made despite a cut in funding since 1980 of more than 15 per cent. In 1983, the Prime Minister promised to hold university funding at a steady level in real terms after 1984–85. The university is now being told to cut its expenditure by a further 20 per cent.—so much for the Prime Minister's promises.
What has Dundee university done to deserve this? What has it done wrong? No one is saying. But it is certain that, if action is not taken immediately, all these achievements will be threatened. What is to be lost? What achievement do the Government and the UGC want Dundee to throw away? Is it the initiatives with the local industries? What advantage to Dundee can there be if these are cut? Is it the quality of teaching? This is bound to suffer if there are further losses in academic and non-academic staff.
The Secretary of State recently received a letter from the dean of students at Dundee university that said:
Secondly, academics in Arts and Social Sciences are most unwilling to see their interests divided, by Government and U.G.C. policy, from those of their colleagues in the Sciences. As a recent delegation from the Standing Conference of Arts and Social Sciences in Universities explained some months ago to your predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph, there are many Arts-based academics who are already working to make broader higher education opportunities available to those who can profit by them…The irony of the situation is that efforts to make the curriculum more flexible while at the same time maintaining high standards of excellence, which Sir Keith on that occasion wholeheartedly professed to support, are precisely what the U.G.C.'s present strategies in redistributing resources arc bringing to a halt.
How can teaching be improved if there is less money to be spent on books, services and equipment? How will a reduction in the number of students at Dundee benefit industry and business, which are calling out for more of these graduates? Do the UGC and the Government expect Dundee university to throw away its record on graduate employment? Fewer courses on offer will obviously reduce the opportunities for graduates. This will hurt Dundee because over half the Scottish students at the university are local, coming from the area around Dundee, Perth and Angus. Far more Scottish students go to their home university than do students in England. They do this for good reasons. They leave school at an earlier stage, which reduces the burdens on parents supporting their children for a four-year degree. Does the UGC want Dundee to throw away its new innovations in research and damage its solid base?
What about the effects on the local economy? The university is the second largest employer in the region with a budget for expenditure of £26 million. Every £100,000 that is cut from the university results in an estimated loss of £140,000 from the local economy. With the deficit expected to reach about £1·6 million next year, this means a loss to the region of Tayside of about £2·2 million—hardly the little economy that the Prime Minister seems to think it will be. It could be described as a catastrophe.
Most of the money spent by the university goes into the region and helps the people there. Universities are about people, the people who work and study in them and those who live alongside them and share the benefits. The principal of Dundee got it right when he said that Scotland needs universities in smaller cities such as Dundee. Small universities, by their very nature, must be somewhat more


expensive per student than large ones. To cover a discipline one needs a library, computers and expensive equipment, and one cannot have half of each for a small university. He has explained this to the UGC, but it does not seem to have listened, or it has not been allowed to listen.
The trouble with the UGC is that its members are the old-fashioned academics who talk about the role of the universities in the economy, but, in real practical terms, this means the local economy, a point that they do not understand. Many in the university system believe that the further away one is from London, Oxford and Cambridge, the more likely it is that the UGC decides to cut one's budget even further. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
The Government and the UGC have bungled the job. They have not listened to those who know best—the business men, the industrialists, the students, the universities and the local communities. They do not seem to know about the special needs of Scottish universities within the framework of the Scottish education system. They are part of a system that sees as part of its strength the capacity to teach across a broad reach of subjects. Children in school are not forced to specialise too early, and they get a chance to select their subject during the two introductory years of a four-year degree. The system is more efficient because time is not wasted upon teaching students in wrong courses. It is also a system that can respond immediately to change.
An essential feature of the Scottish system is the four-year degree. It is not just a question of an extra year at university. The whole structure of secondary education is different from that in England. It is geared to the four-year university degree. Students enter universities in Scotland one year earlier than they do in England. Any attempt to change the four-year degree must be seen as an attack on the whole system of education. This is not a special case argument. It is an argument for a completely different system that cannot be funded along the same lines as the English system.
We shall all be worse off in the long run if there are fewer people in the work force with the advanced qualifications that are needed to maintain an efficient economy and a competitive industry. Already the proportion of the British population with a degree is only half the figure for Japan or America. When he spoke last week to university teachers at their rally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said that the Labour party is committed to adequate and consistent funding of higher education, to a proper career structure for all those who work in higher education, and to access for all those who can profit by it and who want to pursue higher education. If the UGC proposals for Dundee university were to he accepted, it would take us back to the failed, elitist structures of yesterday that demonstrably have failed the majority of our young people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): "Wholly a blessed time when jargon might abate and here and there some genuine speech begin." I quote, of course, Thomas Carlyle, an illustrious countryman of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as devoted to him as I am.

I respect the hon. Gentleman's committment to his constituency and to Scottish concerns that has led him to initiate this debate, but it is rather a shame that he does not seem to have recognised another essential truth propagated by Thomas Carlyle, to the effect that there is a noble conservatism, as well as an ignoble one.
I am very much aware of the position that universities and other institutions of higher education occupy in their local communities. That applies not only in Scotland but to universities in any part of the United Kingdom. This contribution to employment, as well as the contribution to the educational life of the area in question, is one of the major reasons why the funding of universities is of concern to many local communities.
Nevertheless, I cannot accept the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and in reply I should like to make a series of points. The hon. Gentleman made no acknowledgement whatsoever in his speech of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on 20 May. The Government have already made it clear that in order to maintain the policy of selectivity and rationalisation in universities on which the UGC is embarked they are prepared to consider the possibility of extra cash for the universities for the 1987–88 and subsequent financial years, provided that in discussion with the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals it is possible to reach agreement on a programme of work that will maintain and develop the policy of selectivity and rationalisation, better management, including in particular better financial management, and a drive to improve the quality of teaching, including the development of provision for the training and appraisal of academic staff. This is a serious proposal. I hope very much that the universities will take it seriously. The Department is already engaged in discussions with the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
The hon. Gentleman, like so many Opposition Members, seeks to perpetuate a myth about the contraction of higher education. It is very tiresome for grown-up people to have to go over the same ground so often, but I am afraid that we shall have to cover it yet again. Since 1979, Conservative Governments presided over a massive expansion in higher education. In Great Britain as a whole there are 128,000 more full-time and part-time students now than there were in 1979, including nearly 80,000 more full-time students. In Scotland the number of students in full-time higher education has risen from under 69,000 in 1979–80 to around 79,000 in the current academic year, which is an increase of about 15 per cent.
The proportion of young people who enter higher education in Scotland is traditionally higher than for the rest of the United Kingdom. Despite the increase in the size of the 17 and 18-year-old population, the proportion of that population entering higher education has grown over the period from 17 per cent. in 1979 to 19 per cent. in 1984–85, and is projected to continue to rise. So we have achieved an increasing proportion entering higher education out of a much greater total population.
To suggest that there is any systematic prejudice against Scotland — I feared that the hon. Gentleman might suggest it and unfortunately my fears Were well founded — in the allocation of grant by the UGC is simply nonsense. The UGC has this year for the first time moved to a much greater openness in its allocation of grant and


to a much more systematic and publicly articulated methodology. Provision for teaching in all subjects has been made on the basis of a common allocation per student in each subject for every university. So there is no possibility of prejudice there. Provision for research has been calculated on the basis of four main factors, three quantitative and one qualitative.

Mr. Donald Dewar: rose—

Mr. Walden: I want to continue, as I do not have much time.
They are, first, the numbers of academic staff and of research students; secondly, income from the research councils and from medical and other research charities; thirdly, research contract income from industry and from Government Departments; and, fourthly, the UGC's evaluation of the quality of research in each departmental cost centre, having regard to universities' own research statements, and to the views of the research councils and other bodies and individuals. These judgments were reached by the subject sub-committees of the UGC, so that over 120 academics and others were involved.
This obviously represents a much wider cross-section of the academic community than the main committee of the UGC. I would like to stress that powerful representation from Scotland was present on those committees.
Historically, the Scottish universities have been relatively generously funded compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The move to a fairer distribution of grant based on a common unit of funding per student in each subject has therefore been the main reason for the funding changes in the majority of Scottish universities. Two universities—

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Walden: I am sorry. I have only a matter of minutes.
Two universities gained from this, but five lost. Four Scottish universities also lost because of the judgment that was made of the quality of their research, but so did many other universities in different parts of the United Kingdom.
It is important to recognise that the allocations that have been made by the UGC are not set in concrete. I want to stress that strongly. If a university gets more from the research councils or from industry, it will automatically get more from the UGC by the operation of the sophisticated formula that has been put in place. So there is every incentive to universities to build upon their strengths and to try to improve their relative position. Later, I shall mention the particular strengths of Dundee.
I have recently visited two universities in Scotland, Aberdeen and St. Andrew's, and I look forward to visiting as many more as I can. In that and other ways I have become aware of the many links between Scottish universities and industry. The growth of high technology industry is one of the signs of the changing structure of the Scottish economy. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, some traditional industries such as shipbuilding and steel are declining in importance, largely due to worldwide changes in demand, but there are also exciting developments in, for example, high technology such as electronics and biotechnology, and in the service sector. I

was particularly glad to note that the applied mathematics and biochemistry sectors in Dundee university were rated as outstanding nationally. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not show more pride in that.
The Government recognise that some areas are particularly affected by the decline of traditional manufacturing industry, and our regional policy will continue to make an important contribution. Since May 1979 offers of regional selective assistance made in Scotland have totalled £368·7 million, the projects creating or safeguarding nearly 140,000 jobs. In 1984–85 alone, expenditure on regional development grant is estimated to have been £109 million.
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar, from his own knowledge of Dundee, with the scope of Government support. Apart from regional assistance, Dundee's development area status gives it access to European Community loans at favourable rates. Maximum support is available from Government and European Community sources for local initiatives such as the Tayside enterprise zone and the Dundee project. I understand that one of the zone sites is a technology park which provides Dundee with the opportunity to become a major centre for high technology industry. All of this is positive and encouraging.
As I began by saying, the Government are prepared to consider the provision of additional resources for the universities generally, from which the universities in Scotland can expect to benefit, but it is necessary to emphasise the continued need to restrain the growth in public expenditure in the interest of the economy as a whole. If we want universities in Scotland to continue to be as outstanding in international terms as they are, we have to continue to generate the wealth to pay for those universities.
Universities do not pay for themselves but are paid for out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the taxpayers in my constituency. We can fund our universities more generously only if we are a wealthier nation. Wealth is created not by the Government, but by individuals and firms throughout the country.
Under our economic policies the rate of inflation has now come down to 2·8 per cent. in the year to May 1986. In that connection I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a decade or so ago the inflation rate for our universities was about 30 per cent. Let us keep some sense of proportion by looking back at the sort of policies that the hon. Gentleman's party pursued. Those policies caused the rate of inflation for university costs to reach the astronomical and rather absurd figure of 30 per cent.
Wage inflation is now running at 7–5 per cent. By contrast, some of our major European competitors, and in particular West Germany, have succeeded in achieving negative inflation and falling wage costs per unit of output. I mention all this because it is important background information in this debate, as it would be in any debate on public expenditure.
The UGC's policies of selectivity and rationalisation are brave and courageous and are to be applauded, but I understand that they may have caused disappointment in some departments. I say some departments because I must not brand universities in any part of Britain by judging them by specific departmemts. The judgment of one's peers can often seem harsh. Some universities may have been trying to do too much on a limited base and it is


important in such cases to build on the strengths that have been identified by the UGC. This is one such area, and I am convinced that in the longer term this whole new exercise of selectivity will be a major gain for the entire university system. In the long-term interests of the health of the system it can only be a plus to be reminded publicly of where one's strengths and weaknesses lie.
As is frequently the case with the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that there is an essential interconnection between the economy as a whole and higher education. Frankly, I was mildly shocked, or I would have been had I not become so hardened to this even in so short a time, by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the recent labour rally at which higher education was discussed. He knows as well as I do of the rather embarrassing recent exchange between the Opposition spokesman on education and the spokesman on economic affairs. One pulled the rug from under the feet of the other as fast as the other was dishing out Mickey Mouse money to universities.

It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman consistently to ignore in his speech the implications for the economy of the funding of universities, just as it was wrong for him to ignore the important statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, the former Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. Friend said clearly to the House only a few weeks ago that he was perfectly well aware of the strains that were developing in some universities, and that provided some understanding could be reached about efficiency, selectivity and improvement in teaching in those universities, the Government would give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of finding further funding for the universities in the United Kingdom. That also means in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.